the Psalm had not as yet been really performed But yet notwithstanding it is to be noted first that the expression of raising or resurrection of Christ doth sometimes by a kind of Synecdoche joyned with a Metonymie comprehend the whole Glory of Christ to wit Immortality and Supream Power that he obtained by the Resurrection And in this sence only this word seems to be taken Acts. 2.32 33. and 4.33 compared with 5.32 10 40 c. Rom. 4.25 10.9 Phil. 3.10 1 Pet. 1.3 and 3.21 Furthermore it is also to be observed that the Participle Aorists being joyned to Verbs of the Pretertense have oftentimes the same force as Participles of the Presentense when they are joyned to the same Verbs Whereof you have examples amongst others in Heb. 1.4 7.21 11.9 2 Pet. 2.6 15. besides that which is every where found in the Evangelists he answering said Wherefore it may be rightly concluded that the Apostles words are to be understood as if he had said God hath fulfilled the Promise made unto the Fathers having raised as an antient Interpreter hath it or in raising Jesus chiefly because unto Christs generation of God the very restoring of him to life did also conduce seeing that thereby he was as it were begotten again but the Immortality which Christ obtained by the intervening of the Resurrection was far more available After this manner indeed he became like unto God in his Nature whereupon our Resurrection also is called Regeneration and Christ affirmeth that they who shall be counted worthy of that Age and the resurrection from the dead are the Sons of God seeing they are the Children of the Resurrection Luke 20.36 And Paul affirmeth That we look for the adoption of the Sons of God even the redemption of our bodies Rom. 8.23 For the fellowship or participation of the divine Nature which Peter speaks of 2 Pet. 1 4. doth principally consist in Immortality But hither tends most of all the divine Empire and Power of Christ for which he is the Son of God in the perfectest manner If therefore you will only interpret the Greek Particle Jesus being risen or after that he had raised Jesus we should understand that the Promise made unto the Fathers was then really and perfectly fulfilled touching the Messiah or an extraordinary King that was to be given to the Israelites and moreover also that expression of the Psalm Thou art my Son to day have I begotten thee when Jesus was raised from the dead by God and set at his right hand in the heavenly places and so made Christ or a King and Lord by the Power and Grace of God For hence as we have already * Chap. 28. of this Sect. seen doth the Divine Author to the Hebrews chap. 5.5 take those words of the Psalm touching the glorification of Christ on the Priestly honour that was conferred upon him which doth indeed contain his Royal Power seeing that his Kingdom is Priestly and his Priesthood Royal. And hereupon they are elsewhere also in holy Scripture taken for the same thing that Jesus is the Son of God and that Jesus is Christ that is a King anointed by God over his people or a Lord even him by whom alone God would administer and govern his Church with all things belonging to her For upon this account the principal doctrine of the supream dignity of Christ and our faith and confession of him are promiscuously †Compare Mat. 16.16 Mark 8.29 Luke 9.20 Joh. 1.50 Act. 8.37.9 20 22. Rom. 10.9 1 Cor. 12.3 Phil. 2.11 1 Joh. 4.15.5 1. and 5. also 2.22.4 2.3 2 Joh. 4. compare those also Matth. 27.41.42.43 and Luk. 23.35 add 22.67 69 70. and see the same places placed in this that Jesus is Christ or Lord or that Jesus is the Son of God Whence it likewise comes to pass that as often as those two namely to be Christ and to be the Son of God are mentioned together of Jesus of Nazareth they are never joyned by the copulative particle and as things different although this particle hath often times the force of explication only but they are without it everywhere joyned by apposition to shew that different things are not connected but the same thing is diversly described See Matth. 16.16.26.63 John 6.69.11.27.20.31 And it is first of all to be noted that that famous Confession of Peter touching Christ and his supream dignity being likewise declared in the name of the other disciples is described by Matthew Chap. 16.16 in these words Thou art Christ the Son of the living God But by Mark Chap. 8.29 only in these words Thou art Christ By Luke Chap. 9 20. The Christ of God Which two latter Evangelists would have left out one and a principal part indeed of that confession if it had been one thing to be the Son of the living God and another thing to be Christ But if both be indeed the same thing they have in effect omitted nothing but only expressed the same thing more briefly But now to be Christ or to be anointed of God doth in no wise constitue the most high God nor argue him to be so but the contrary seeing that the most high God can be anointed by none nor be made a King by any one And least haply any should say that there still remaines another and that a more sublime cause for which Jesus may be called the Son of God that is refuted partly by the Scriptures silence thereof which could not have omitted so great a matter and partly from those testimonies of Scripture we have hitherto alleaged For not here to repeat other things if there had been any other weightier cause for for which Jesus might be called the Son of God it could in no wise have been omitted in the place before examined by us Rom. 1.4 For there as we have seen the Apostle intended to shew by what reason Christ may be called the Son of God but he doth not in that place take the name of the Son of God in any other signification than that which is most excellent whilst he describeth him by the appellation of the Son of God the proper name of Jesus Christ haâ—ing not as yet been expressed Wherefore we ought to think that he hath expressed the most excellent or if you will rather the true and genuine reason of that appellation But doth he express that to be the cause of that thing that Christ was begotten out of the Essence of God from eternity and so was the most high God by no means but this rather which contradicts that and suffeâ—s not that Christ should be the most high God when he saith that he was made the Son of God and indeed according to the Spirit of holiness that is according to the Spirit wherewith he was sanctified and that by the resurrection from the dead for that some understand by the Spirit of holiness the divine Essence it is done both without an example
remission of sins was made judge of the quick and dead Again How often do the Apostles commend the exceeding great love and bounty of God exhibited in Christ Jesus to mankind But what more illustrious argument could there have been of this love then that the most high God should willingly be made man for mans sake Wherefore then is there so great silence in those places concerning this thing Namely because it never was neither was there any that we may briefly add this thing also cause which did require that the most high God the creator of Heaven and earth should assume flesh For as much as the man Christ Jesus being asisted by divine power was able to performe and did really performe when he was upon earth all things that belonged unto our salvation both in teaching and also in working miracles and finally in obeying his Father in all things and was able also to performe and did so indeed performe by the same divine power whatsoever things are required to the perfecting of our Salvation But who dares to say that God would admit a thing so contrary to his Majesty without the greatest cause or rather necessity although at length it were possible for his nature But we will not enlarge on this matter because these things are here and there handled in our Arguments that belong to this place But if any one desire to see this also more fully explained he may read elsewhere * See Socin in his fragments page 18. c. in ours CHAP. XXXIII Arg. 33 The holy Spirit was given unto Christ The three and thirtieth Argument That the holy Spirit was given unto Christ VVE will make the third Argument this that the holy Spirit was given by God unto Christ of which thing we do not read â—nly in one place of holy Scripture For both in the Old Testament chiefly in Isaiah there are some testimonies of this thing and also in the New where some places are likewise cited out of the Old For so speaketh Isaias in the beginning of the 11th Chapter And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse and a branch shall grow out of his roots And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him the Spirit of wisdom and understanding the Spirit of counsel and might the Spirit of knowledge and piety or as it is in the Hebrew of the fear of the Lord. Which all both see and confess to be spoken of Christ Likewise in the beginning of the 42d Chapter God speaketh of the same Christ Behold my servant whom I uphold mine elect in whom my soul delighteth I have put my Spirit upon him Which words are cited by Christ Matth. 12.17 And Chap. 61.1 the Prophet bringeth in Christ speaking after this manneâ— The Spirit of the Lord is upon me for that the Lord hath anointed me Which words Christ himself testifieth to be fulfilled in him Luke 4.18 c. But in the same Gospel we read how the holy Spirit descended on Christ when he was baptised of John and abode upon him Matth. 3.16 Luke 3.22 and John 1.32 33. Whence Luke in the beginning of his fourth Chapter saith That Jesus being full of the holy Spirit went up out of Jordan And Peter with the same Writer testifieth Acts 10.38 That God had anointed him with the holy Spirit and with power Whence Christ proveth that he cast out Devils in or by the Spirit of God which thing also Peter Acts 10. doth plainly shew and accuseth the Pharisees of blasphemy against the holy Spirit that they durst to ascribe to Beelzebub the Prince of Devils such kind of miracles as were done by the very power of the holy Spirit Matth. 12.28.31 Mark 3. compare vers 30. with the foregoing And Luke saith Acts 1.2 That Christ in the same day wherein he was taken up gave commandment to the Apostles by the holy Spirit that is by the motion of the holy Spirit For neither did he make use of the ministry of the holy Spirit by whose intervening help he gave commandments to his disciples although others by transposition connect the words by the holy Spirit with the following whom he had chosen whereof it is not necessary to dispute in this place For as to our purpose the force of the words will be the same to wit that Christ by the motion of the holy Spirit chose the Apostles Neither is it a wonder seeing that he was the Spirit of wisdom and understanding the Spirit of counsel the Spirit of knowledge that is who produced Wisdom Understanding Counsel Knowledge and bestowed it on Christ as appears from Isa 11. a place cited by us But that we may from hence demonstrate that Christ is not the most high God we will not now use that reason that by this means something was given unto him by God the Father which Argument we have * Chap. 18. of this Sect. elsewhere explained but this that he would not truly have stood in need of the holy Spirit if he were the most high God especially if that Opinion of the Adversaries be laid down that the holy Spirit is a Person distinct from the Father and the Son For what help I pray you can the holy Spirit yield unto the most high God What is there that the most high God cannot perform of himself For it is not what they say that Christ's humane Nature needed the assistance of the holy Spirit For that I may not urge that now that those things are spoken simply of Christ that are not to be spoken if he were the most high God as of whom they are simply to be denyed What need was there of the help of the holy Spirit the third Person of the Deity as they will have it unto the humane Nature if the very same was personally joyned to the second Person of the Deity if the whole fulness of the divine Essence as they interpret that place Col. 2.9 did dwell therein bodily if as the same persons judge that divine Nature did bestow all the supernatural Gifts upon the humane that hapned unto it if that did either communicate unto it all its Properties or at least the full knowledge of all things as the major part of the Adversaries judge Whether or no the holy Spirit could add any thing to this store Wherefore I pray is Christ deciphered rather by the holy Spirit than by his own Nature either to have cast out Devils or to have commanded any thing or to have been endued with Wisdom Understanding Counsel Might Knowledge the Fear of the Lord The Defence of the Argument SOme one will perhaps say that therefore those things are rather attributed to the holy Spirit than to the divine Nature or Person of Christ because they belong unto Christs Sanctification and that Sanctification although common to the whole Trinity is properly ascribed to the holy Spirit But they speak thus not only without reason but even contrary to reason We
thine holy One to see corruption And a little after ver 32. This Jesus hath God raised up whereof we are all witnesses See also what the same Peter faith afterwards chap. 3.15 which verse compare with the 13th and 4.10 and 5.30 and 10.40 and Paul chap. 7.31 and Rom. 4.24 and 8.11 and 10.19 and also 1 Cor. 6.14 and 15.15 and 2 Cor. 4.14 and 13.4 But there is amongst others a notable place in the same Apostle Ephes 1.9 20. where amongst other things he wisheth to them That they might know what is the exceeding greatness of his power namely whom he had ver 17. called the God of our Lord Jesus Christ the Father of Glory towards us who believe according to the working of his mighty Power which he wrought in Christ having raised him from the dead and set him at his own right hand in heavenly places c. And likewise those words which we read chap. 2.5 and those that are like unto them Col. 2.12 13. Add also those of the divine Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews chap. 13.24 and those of 1 Pet. 1.21 We mention not those Testimonies which indeed are not few wherein it is simply affirmed that Christ was raised from the dead which being so often repeated doth altogether signifie that he was raised by another as also the circumstances of some places do plainly intimate See amongst others 1. Cor. 15.4 12 c. where that manner of speaking is seven times used and afterwards ver 15. it is openly asserted that God did it and the Resurrection of Christ is made the pattern of our resurrection which also happeneth elsewhere A more full Confirmation and Defence of the Argument YOu will say that although Christ is said to have been raised by another yet it followeth not that he was not raised by himself in as much as the same action may proceed from many causes and those equal among themselves Moreover that in those places wherein it is asserted that God raised up Christ by the name of God may be understood the whole Trinity or the divine nature of Christ especially in that elsewhere the raising of himself seems to be ascribed unto Christ But the first is not to be admitted for three causes chiefly The first is because that at least followeth from those places which we have alleaged That Christ is not the principal cause of his Resurrection For why should the raising of him â—e so often and so openly ascribed to another person Arg. 28 That Christ was raised up by the Father namely the Father and not rather to Christ himself But even this thing alone might here be sufficient for us to shew that Christ is not the most high God For we have before shewn that he if he were the most high God would altogether be the principal Author of his own Resurrection Another cause is because the holy Scripture doth so attibute the raising of Christ to God the Father that it doth not obscurely yea very openly intimate that the same action doth not indeed agree to Christ himself First because if Christ had raised himself from the dead and that by such a power as was natural and altogether proper unto him it ought to have been mentioned at least in some of those testimonies which we have alleaged and to omit other places this ought chiefly to be done Acts 2.24 c. and Rom. 10.9 10. 2 Cor. 13.4 For as to the first place when Peter had affirmed that Christ had been raised from the dead in that it was impossible for him to be held by death was there not veâ—y great cause to say that it was therefore impossible because he was the most high God who accordingly could not leave his soul in Hell and suffer his body to see corruption For this would have been the proper yea the only cause thereof wheâ—eas he having alleaged the words of David and applyed them to Christ produceth a far different cause namely that Christ alwayes saw the Lord before his eyes because he was alwayes at his right hand lest he should be moved Whence he conceived joy whence hope that the Lord would not leaâ—e his soul in Hell nor suffer his holy one to see corruption whereunto the following words also pertain where Christ in the Person of David professeth that God had made known unto him the wayes of life and would fill him with gladness Which cause hath nothing common with that which should have been alleaged yea doth subvert it Rom. 10.9 As to the second place it should therefore have been there rather said that Christ raised up himself from the dead if so be any one can raise up himself from the dead then that God did it because that is there set down which is in a special manner both to be believed with the heart and to be confessed with the mouth concerning the dignity of Christ and which if we believe and confess we shall obtain salvation But if Christ had raised himself from the dead we ought altogether to believe and confess it as the Adversaries themselves confess yea urge and consequenely it should by no means have here been omitted by the Apostle For he had omitted that which did not only contain in it self the gâ—eater dignity of Christ but was as necessary to be believed by us as that which he expressed * 2 Cor. 13.4 As to the third testimony for this reason in stead of that which is there said That Christ doth live by the Power of God It should rather have been said that he doth live by his own power because the power of Christ is here in question and it is shewn that he is powerful in the Corinthians by removing the suspicion of infirmity which might be grounded on his cruel death To which purpose nothing had been more apt than if it had been said that he revived by his own power and vanquished the force of death Again it is apparent from Acts 13.33 and Rom. 1.4 Col. 1.18 Rev. 1.5 that the raising of Christ was such an action Arg. 29 That Christ was raised up by the Father as that by it he was generated by God and became his Son * Sect. 8. Chap 31. Concerning which matter more hereafter But Christ did not generate himself nor is the Son of himself Thirdly In some places alleaged by us God or the Father of Christ is without expressing his name thus described He that raised Jesus Christ from the dead is by that description distinguished from Christ himself See Rom. 4.24 and 8.11 2 Cor. 4.14 Whence it appeareth that this action is not common to Christ with the Father but proper to the Father otherwise this description would no less that I mgiht not say more agree to Christ than to the Father and consequently â—e who raised Christ from the dead could not be distinguished from Christ for common things as we have elsewhere hinted do not distinguish but proper ones
2 Sam. 23.3 Isa 63.10 Likewise of many passages that are here and there extant in the scripture add these few Isa 11.2 and 42.1 59.21 and 61.1 Joel 1.28 Matth. 3.16 and 12.28 Rom. 15.19 1 Cor. 2.11 12.14 and 3.16 and 6.11 We have above likewise seen other places out of the same Epistle where the holy spirit is in another manner distinguished from God chap. 6.19 and chap. 12.4 5 6. and 2 Cor. 13. last which places are wont to be alledged by the Adversaries to shew that the holy spirit is a divine person But in a manifest thing no more proofs are needfull Now we have reckoned up those places of the scripture cheifly wherein the adversaries do either confess that it is spoken concerning the very person of the holy spirit or also urge it least any one should contend that it is spoken only concerning the gift proceeding from the same person and that it only but not the holy spirit properly so called is termed the spirit of God concerning which distinction we will treat in the following Argument The Defence of the Argument BUt they say that when the holy spirit it is distinguished from God or the Lord that by the name God or the Lord the Father is understood or also the son who likewise is the Lord. For therefore he is called the spirit of both because he proceedeth from both A like exception we have seen conceâ—ning Christ who is also most frequently distinguished from God Now the same things that we have there spoken to that exception Sect. 2. Chap. 1. or like unto them may here likewise be alleaged Wherefore since they may thence be fetcht there is no need to repeat them here CHAP. VI. Arg. 6 The holy Spirit is the Power of God The sixth Argument The holy Spirit is the Power of God THe second Argument of this rank but the sixth of this Section shall be this that the holy Spirit is the power or efficacy of God namely that we may explain it by tâ—e by which proceedeth from God and issuing unto men doth sanctifie and consecrate them and produce various and admirable effects in them which power they are wont to call divine inspiration but the power and efficacy of God can at no rate be the most high God or a person of supream Deity as shall better be understood in the Defence of this Argument But even our Adversaries who are a little more versed in the holy Scripture are aware that the holy Spirit is the power or efficacy of God For among others that place is very plain Luke 24.49 where Christ saith And I send the promise of my Father upon you but abide ye in the City of Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on high Where by all Interpreters that I know it is observed that under the name of that power with which the Apostles were to be endued the holy Spirit is understood and this was that Promise of the Father from Christ to be sent upon them See among other places Acts 1.4 5 8. and 2.4 33. Therefore this place also was brought to illustrate those other places in which the holy Spirit is signifyed by the appellation of the divine Power It likes me to set down here the words of two most learned Interpreters of the holy Scripture one a Papist the other a Protestant in their Annotations on Luke 1.35 where the Angel saith to the Virgin Mary The holy Spirit shall come upon thee and the Power of the most high shall overshadow thee For the former * John Maldonat Interpreter after he had said that Gregory Chrysostome Victor Damascen Beda Theophilact interpret the Power of the Most high to be Christ or the Son of God adds Others think that he whom before he called the holy Spirit now is called the Power of the most high God as Euthymius whom I rather follow though of less account and the only Author yet saying things more like truth than many and those of greater esteem For it is a repeating of the same sentence such as the Hebrews chiefly in songs do frequently use one sentence concluding one verse which in the fore part of the verse is expressed in some words in the latter is repeated in other words as Psal 2.4 He that dwelleth in the heavens shall deride them and the Lord shall mock them For in the same manner we see the Angel a little before to have said Hail thou that art full of favour the Lord is with thee varying the words the sence being the same And the holy Spirit is wont to be termed as the Finger so also the Power of God by the same similitude as beneath chap. 24.49 But stay ye in the City until ye be endued with Power from on high Therefore Power and Spirit are wont most often to be coupled in the holy Scriptures as below chap. 4.14 and in Acts 10.38 Rom. 1.4 and 15.13 1 Cor. 2.4 Ephes 3.16 1 Thes 1.5 But the * John Piscator latter so writes And the Power of the most high that is the same holy Spirit who is the Power proceeding from the Most High that is God the Father A description For the same sentence is repeated in other words by way of explication So below ver 24.49 the holy Spirit is named the Power from on high To them also other most learned †See John Calvin men assent For that many of the Antients have understood the Son of God by the Power of the most high that I repeat not the reason brought by a most learned Interpreter of the Papists it is also refuted by other Arguments First because Mat. 1.20 where the Angel expresseth the same thing to Joseph he mentions only the holy Spirit nor would he have left out the Son of God if Gabriel had by name conjoyned him with the holy spirit in this place and had made him Author of his own conception seeing there was no greater cause of mentioning him here than there Moreover because by this means Christ should be made the son of himself seeing in the former * Chap. 31 Section we have shewed that Christ was called the son of God by reason of so wonderful a conception and generation Perhaps some other will say that the Power of the Most High in this place signifies neither the son nor the holy spirit but the efficacy flowing from the holy spirit For here two efficient Causes of the conception of Christ are mentioned one the Person of the holy Spirit the other his Power But first that reason which we now brought concerning the son is against it because by this reason the holy spirit should be made the Father of Christ of which by it self we shall afterward in the following chapter treat Furthermore if any person here had been to be named besides the Fatâ—er of Christ such especially who being to come upon the Viâ—gin was to cause the conception of Christ the son had
it That redemption is ascribed to the Son neither alone simply nor as the first author but as the cheif middle cause who in the name of the Father and by his command performed the whole work of our redemption and salvation and as yet performes it As to sanctification neither is that more often ascribed unto the holy Spirit than to the Father or Son especially openly neither is it attributed as to some person but as to a thing by which sanctification is performed Which first is manifest from thence that where as it is read expresly of the Father that he sanctifies as also of Christ it is no where said of the holy Spirit that I know that it sanctifies buâ— onely that in or by it men are sanctified or some such way which is not proper to a person is sanctification ascribed unto it Of the Father you have plain places Joh. 10.36.17.17 to which add 1 Thess 5.23 Where it easily appeares that there it is spoken of the Father since the holy Scripture understand him alone by the name of God subjectively put cheifly when he is distinguished from Christ Neither shall I easily beleeve that the Adversaries will take this place of the holy Spirit onely Also in the Old testament many places occur in which God affirmes that he it is who sanctifyes the people of Israel which either speak of the Father alone as we think or at least of the Father also not of the holy Spirit alone Of Christ you have testimonies Eph. 5.26 Heb. 2.11.13.12 For I pass by those places in which in some other manner sanctification is ascribed either to the Father or the Son But if the holy Spirit were a divine person equal to the Father in all things and to him in some cheif respect the action of sanctifying did agree how could it be that of him it should not be once said that he sanctifies but of the Father and Son it should be said plainly The action of sanctifying might be directly attributed indeed to the holy Spirit although it were not a person since we see that to many other * Mat. 23.17 19. Heb. 9.13 things and chiefly to qualities which they call active actions are directly attributed in holy Scripture and also the very act of sanctifying But it cannot be that the holy Spirit should be a person and that the act of sanctifying should agree to it in a peculiar manner above the Faâ—her and the Son and yet not be directly any where attributed to it We have by the way touched above also other reasons for we shewed in the Argument next foregoing that it would follow out of that supposition of the adversaries that the holy Spirit is the Father of Christ rather than God who is every where said to be his Father We have seen also * Chap. 3. of this Section above in the Epistle of Jude that Sanctification is ascribed to the Father Preservation of us to Christ the holy Spirit being not indeed so much as mentioned For so the Greek Text hath it Jude a servant of Jesus Christ and the brother of James to them that are sanctified in God the Father and preserved in Christ Jesus the called Or as some later Interpreters in some manner studying the perspicuity of the sentence have rendred it called of God the Father or by the Father sanctified and saved by Jesus Christ Is it credible if the holy Spirit were a divine person to whom the action of sanctifying in some respect should rather agree than to the Father and Son that this action should be attributed as proper to the Father the mention of the holy Spirit being altogether omitted We have seen it also affirmed by Paul * 1 Cor. 8.6 That all things in any manner pertaining to our Salvation are from God the Father as the first cause all things in like manner by the Son as the middle cause no mention being made of the holy Spirit But if tâ—e holy Spirit were a divine person to whom so notable an action so greatly pertaining to our salvation should agree in some remarkable respect above those two persons not onely the mention of it could not be omitted but also it could not be rightly affirmed that all things are of the Father or that all things are by Christ For that person of the holy Spirit either as the first and supream cause should have something in so great a matter above the Father or as a midle cause above the Son when notwithstanding not some but all things are entirely attributed to the Father as the first cause and to the Son as the midle cause yet holding the next place from the first Lastly the common opinion concerning the Trinity doth not bear such a partition of actions and offices For if those persons have one and the same numerical understanding will power there is not any of these more in one than in the rest it is necessary that there be also one operation in number of all these as even the adversaries confess and that one person act not any thing more than another For such diversity or inequality of action could not arise any otherwise thence than that one person of this thing another of that a third of another thing should either think rather or would rather exercise it or lastly could better perfome it But such a difference cannot be held in that unity because seeing those persons think altogether with the same understanding not with another and another in like manner also they both will with the same will and work outwardly by the same power in number one thinks wills and workes as much as another not one more than another It is manifest therefore that sanctification and whatsoever pertaines to it doth in no wise more agree to the holy Spirit than to the Father and Son if he were one God with both And hence ariseth a third reason by which it is demonstrated that it cannot indeed be said no not by a Metonymie of the holy Spirit that he is given or received by men if he be held to be that one God together with the Father and Son For it will follow that the holy Spirit is no more given to us and received of us than the Father and the Son For those gifts and effects in respect of which the holy Spirit should be said to be given should no more come from the holy Spirit than from the Father and the Son nor in one respect from these and in another from that but in the same altogether But who hath ever heard who hath read that the Father was given to any or was prayed to be given to us when the gifts of the holy Spirit were prayed for Who asks at this day that the Son might be given to him being about to ask for those same gifts Who would brook him that should ask Christ that he would give the Father to him or would pray to the person of the holy Spirit
rest in him only come ultimately to him alone but is dispersed among more persons who are held to be altogether equal to him likewise both honour and trust and invocation and all sorts of praises are ultimately divided unto more which wholly ought to come at length to one person And these absurdities indeed arise as well from the opinion of the supream deity of the Son as from the doctrine concerning the supream deity of the holy Spirit But that is more proper to the opinion concerning the holy Spirit that divine empire and government is attributed to it which doth not at all agree to it and moreover it is held to be God to be adored of it self invocated and celebrated as the giver of all good things whatsoever whereas none of these as we have seen * Lib. 1. Sect. 3. Chap. 1 3 are attributed to it in the holy Scriptures nor can be attributed since it is not a person Therefore although otherwise the holy Spirit be subordinate to the most high God as the middle cause of most divine actions yet is it not so subordinate as a person is wont to be to whom an empire and manageing of affaires and the parts of honour and worship which are wont and ought to follow it are granted by another in which manner we see Christ who is expresly both called God and being placed in the Throne of God is said to command all things to be subordinate to God Whence also it is commanded that he be adored by all and that all men put their trust in him and so be bold to implore his aid neither is there any part of the divine Honour which is not found to be attributed to him although so that it tend ultimately to the Father None of these things are found concerning the holy Spirit Wherefore the Adversaries do not only sin in that that they make the holy Spirit the most high God but also simply in that that they hold it to be a God or endued with a divine Empire and governing humane affaires and further that they say that it is no less to be invocated and adored than Christ and that other things also are to be attributed to it which properly are due to a divine and heavenly King and Lord being unmindful of the most plain words of the Apostle asserting 1 Cor. 8.6 That to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we for him and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him But although this absurdity which we have explained in the latter place doth more appear in the common opinion concerning the holy Spirit than concerning the Son of God yet it doth appear also in this and unless another errour to wit of the incarnation of the Son of God had somewhat corrected that other it would be yet more grievous For whilst before and besides Jesus Christ born of the Virgin I say that man whom they call the humane nature only there is feigned an only begotten Son of God who existed from all eternity who was alwayes endowed together with the Father with a divine Empire over all things a Deity is attributed to that thing which not only was not subordinate to the most high God or invested with so high an Empire by him but indeed was never existent And in this latter part this errour of it self is more grievous than that which is committed about the Deity of the holy Spirit For the holy Spirit not only existed and doth yet exist but is also as we have said a most divine thing and truly united with and subordinate to the most high God in most excellent works We hear sometimes some saying that even therefore their opinion touching Christ is to be preferred before our because it is conjoyned with his greater Glory But the very love towards Christ our Saviour requireth that we rather add some honour to him than detract from him Which men indeed first so deal as if the matter did depend on our arbitrement and were not altogether to be estimated by the determination of the holy Scriptures that is of God himself and the manifest reason of the thing it self Seeing therefore the holy Scriptures themselves have in this part set us certain limits beyond which it is unlawful to pass as it is not lawful for us to take away any tâ—ing from the â—onour of Christ so neither to add any thing to it Neitheâ— indeed doth the true love towards Christ how great soever it be require that we ascribe any thing to him beyond truth and honour him with false titles and praises For neither is he delâ—ghted with false honour who abounds with true honour neither doth he account any thing to be his praise which doth diminish the glory of his Father from whom all honour all divinity is derived But that opinion of the Adversaries conceâ—ning the supream divinity of Christ doth as we have seen diminish it Therefore although it should at length be lawful out of our affection to add something to the honour of Christ yet that would not be lawful which is conjoyned with the Fathers injury It is not lawful to detract any thing from the honour of Christ But neither is it lawful to take away any thing from the honour of the Father It is not lawful to detract any thing fâ—om the love towards the Son But neither is it lawful to take away any thing from the love towards the Father Since even that former is not lawful because whilst the honour due to Christ is denyed also the honour due to the Father is denyed and whilst the Son is less loved than is meet the Father is less loved For * John 5.23 He that honoureth not the Son saith Christ himself honoureth not the Father who sent him And †John 15.23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also For as John saith ‖ 1 John 5.1 He that loveth him that begat loveth also him that is begotten of him Therefore the most high regard is to be had to the honour of the Son but no less to that of the Father for whose sake he is honoured and beloved Neither indeed are we those who detract any part of honour from the Son or desire to detract for whose glory trusting to his aid we refuse not indeed even the cruellâ—st death Being instructed by him we refel the honour falsly and with imminution of the divine glory ascribed to him That which he himself refuseth we will not do And that you may see that we leave to Christ his honour undiminished and endeavour as we are able to maintain it what more doth Christ himself requiâ—e of us than that we honour him as we honour the Father Doth any greater honour agree to him I think none but he that is out of his wits will say it But for what cause doth Christ chaâ—lenge that honour to himself Is it therefore because he is the most high God
The Two BOOKS OF John Crellius FRANCUS Touching ONE GOD THE FATHER Wherein many things also concerning the Nature of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are discoursed of Translated out of the Latine into English Printed in Kosmoburg at the Sign of the Sun-beams in the Year of our Lord MDCLXV John Crellius Minister of the Racovian Church To the Christian Reader GREETING WE set forth not long since Christian Reader a Book touching God and his Attributes which we prefixed before the Books of John Volkelius touching the true Religion When we discoursed therein touching the Unity of God it seemed requisite to the full explication of that Unity that we should shew the most high God to be One not in Essence onely but also in Person and to be no other then the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and indeed we began to demonstrate this with divers Arguments and to guard those Arguments against such Exceptions as were either common or somewhat more specious and plausible But since the Work did as we there said grow under our hand we thought that this Treatise was to be parted from the rest of the Work For not onely the plenty of Arguments which did of their own accord offer themselves to us out of the Scripture increased the bulk of our Writing but also our desire not willingly to omit any of those things which might seem to men to be of some moment for the over-throwing of out Arguments For since for this Opinion chiefly touching One God the Father though grounded upon many most clear Testimonies of the Scripture we are exposed to the most bitter hatred and Persecution of all men I thought it very expedient to shew what great injury was done unto us in this behalf yea how injurious the Christian World was to it self in so obstinately rejecting this part of the Divine Truth especially since there is so various and notable use of this Doctrine in Divinity and in the whole Christian Religion as by the help of God we will shew in the end of these Books Now I thought this Book to be the more necessary in that I saw our Men whilst they were dayly opposed by the Adversaries for the most part with an hostile Mind and Pen were chiefly busied in answering their Reasons inserting their own Arguments commonly in brief and in a scattered manner here and there inasmuch as they acted the parts of Respondents rather than Opponents For though certain Eminent Men in our Church did sometimes begin to take upon them the Office of Opponents in this Controversie yet being diverted by other labour of Writing they were sorced to lay this out of their hands Wherefore they left to us nothing but the beginning of that Work which they undertook to this end and which we certain years ago did publish Certainly it was a thing exceedingly to be desired that such men far better furnished with Wit and with Knowledge of Divine Things than we are had rather finished this Work than left it to Us to be perfected But inasmuch as that hath not been done by them we ought not to suffer that it should never be accomplished Now we might the more boldly attempt this labour in that the evident Truth of the Opinion and the multitude of most solid Arguments arising of their own accord out of the holy Scriptures did ease the meanness of our Wit and in that we saw how the Opinion it self had for so many years together been opposed by so many and so acute Adversaries with all sorts of Arms and Engines to no purpose wherefore we took Courage from the Goodness of the Cause Truly we hope in God and Christ that they who are studious of knowing the Truth when they shall have weighed our Arguments will see the Truth of that Opinion that we hold yea that they also whose minds are so beset and besieged with pre-conceived Opinions that they will at no hand give place to the Truth will notwithstanding perceive if they will have but the patience to reade our Writing that we were not moved with slight Reasons from that Opinion which hath for so many Ages been received in the Christian World and if they have any Equity and Humanity left in them will cease to pursue us with so great an hatred for so doing For though we relying on the Divine Help are ready to suffer any thing for the Truths sake yet would it be the part of others not only to abstain from all bitterness of Hatred but also to be touched with compassion towards them whom they thought to be fallen indeed into a great Error but yet were driven thereinto with no slight grounds For it is not the part of a Christian yea not of a Man when he thinketh any one fallen into some Error of Judgment though in a weighty matter not onely to forbear in a courteous way to raise him up out of the same but also with a bitter spirit to plunge him further thereinto But let them do what they please we in the mean time trust in God that they shall never be able to make us repent of the Opinion which we profess Howbeit Christian Reader we beseech thee by the love both of the Truth and of thy own Salvation that thou wouldest diligently consider the things which we write and examine them by the Rule of Gods Word We crave nothing which the Apostle hath not already required of thee whilst he commandeth to try all things and hold fast that which is good To despise and slight those things is altogether inconsistent with Piety For though we should omit other things which are to be mentioned in their place consider that the Glory of God is herein concerned the least part whereof is greater than the greatest of humane Affairs whereon notwithstanding see how much pains all and thou perhaps thy self doest bestow The ignorance of these things is excusable in another because he hath perhaps wanted an opportunity to be acquainted with them and so is not guilty of contempt but thou canst have no excuse for thy self before that Judge who that thou mayst no longer be ignorant offers thee an occasion of better information thereby causing that thou canst not be ignorant of those things without contempt The Divine Truth suffers not it Self to be despised Scot-free Thou knowest that of our Saviour Luk. 12.48 To whom much is given of him much shall be required and with whom they have deposited much the more shall be expected of him The Lord will require more of thee than of others because he affordeth thee a more ample occasion of knowing the Truth than to many others Beware lest that most Righteous Judge finde thee an Unrighteous Judge in this Cause who when thou hearest our Adversaries every where opposing us for the most part with Rayling rather than Reason dost notwithstanding refuse to hear us who defend our Selves and our Opinion in a modest manner But if thou farther darest to condemn
less And indeed the greatest part of Interpreters of Scripture seem to acknowledge this signification of that Lorship which is peculiarly attributed to Christ for as oft as they read that Christ is made Lord or Authority and a Kingdom given unto him or that he shall at length deliver the Kingdom to God the Father they usually say that it is there spoken of that Lordship or Kingdom over the Church which is peculiarly granted unto him as mediator by the Father Since therefore such a Lordship agreeth to Christ only why may he not in regard thereof be called that One Lord especially in this place where as we have seen that one Lord is openly distinguished from that one God and without making mention of any other is said to be Jesus Christ and Christ himself is looked upon as he by whom are all things and by whom God is to be worshipped of us which is proper to a Mediator as they commonly take the word where finally there is a plain relation to us Christians and the Church Wherefore it is evident enough that the Father is not that one Lord which is here spoken of nor doth the same Lordship which is attributed to Christ agree to him Which being so what they say concerning that one Lord is so far from overthrowing our opinion which we hold is contained in the former words speaking of that one God that it much confirms it for if when Paul saith that there is one Lord Jesus Christ his purpose was to signifie that that Lord is no other but Jesus Christ in like manner also when he saith That we have one God even the Father his purpose was to signifie that that God was no other but the Father for there is the same force and reason of the words neither hath the one less force to exclude others than the other Before we go hence we must briefly explain how that one Lord is distinguished from that one God when notwithstanding the name of Lord altogether seemeth here to be taken by way of excellency for otherwise there would be many Lords as Paul himself in the precedent words ver 5. did declare But the name of Lord taken by way of excellency seemeth to signifie no other than the most high God and that independent Monarch We answer that the name of Lord when it is put as proper to Christ is taken by way of excellency but only in respect of other Lords who are so far forth of the same kind with him as they have received their Lordship from the most high God and consequently depend on him For that Christ is of the same rank the Scriptures most manifestly testifie and we hereafter producing most clear * Sect. 2. Chap. 10. testimonies thereof will demonstrate Wherefore whatsoever that Excellency be which is contained in the word Lord when it is put for Christ or attributed to him only yet is it not of so large extent nor so sublime as to comprehend an absolute supream and independent Lordship such as is proper to the most high God and consequently neither doth the name of Lord in that sence agree to the most high God but is distinguished from him Thus namely Is it come to pass that since the name of God doth in its own nature signifie something more excellent and noble than the bare name of Lord that the name God taken by way of excellency should denote him who hath an Empire altogether independent and is the prime efficient of all things But the name of Lord distinguished from him who is called God by way of excellency should by a certain preheminency design him who amongst the Lords dependent on God holdeth the first rank and is far sublimer than all the rest Concerning which thing we could say more but that we must hasten to somewhat else The Refutation of the second Answer For now we must examine the other Answer to our Argument drawn from this place of Paul which is that Father in this place is not taken for the Father of Jesus Christ but comprizeth the whole Trinity Which answer that it should come into any ones head is a wonder certainly it is altogether inexcusable unto them who boast that they teach nothing but the meer word of God and are wont to object to us that following reason We depart from the Word of God and wrest the Scripture for what is it to speak besides the Scripture and to depart from the plain and obvious meaning thereof if this be not for by what instance will they ever prove that the word Father spoken of God doth signifie three Persons of Divinity The places are obvious to any one wherein the word Father either absolutely taken or manifestly related to us which they hold is here tacitly done denoteth the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ And indeed the same is the Father both of Christ and us as Christ himself teacheth in * Chap. 20. ver 17. John and many other things demonstrate Since therefore this signification of the word Father is notorious to all and most usual in the Scripture but that other can by no sufficient instance be demonstrated what came into their heads that leaving that they should imbrace this or rather devise it and that in such a place where Paul intended clearly to explain who that One God is and consequently to use the known signification of the word indeed they alledge places where they think God is for the Creation called Father but here they say respect is had to Creation since all things are said to be of him But this latter is taken without proof for the word All is wont to be referred to the subject matter and to be restrained thereunto But here it is spoken of us that is Christians and consequently of things peculiarly belonging unto Christians Again They do not prove that the Father who is so called for Creation is any other than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Certainly we see how in that which is called The Apostles Creed the same is called the Father Almighty and the Creator of Heaven and Earth and Jesus Christ said to be his Son yea they themselves though they make creation and the other actions which are performed out of God common to the whole Trinity do yet affirm that creation is peculiarly attributed to the Father redemption to the Son sanctification to the holy Spirit Wherefore although God should in this place be called Father for Creation yet would there be no cause why we should imagine any other besides the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ to be understood but there would rather be great caus why we should think that he is peculiarly to be meant Though furthermore there is either no place at all or scarce any in the whole Scripture wherein for the first Creation only concerning what they speak God is called either simply Father or our Father but for other fatherly benefits of his toward men who call him
concluded that every one of these things which are reckoned up is one in it self partly in kind partly in number it is common to all the Faithful for from this Communion of such excellent things or Unity of things common to Christians their Unity is concluded Wherefore all the things which are reckoned up are either such as exist in the very Christians whether apart as Hope Faith Baptism to which we may also refer that one Spirit or joyntly as that mystical Body or else they are things which do indeed exist without them but yet have a manifest relation to them and reduce them to Unity such as are that One Lord and that One God and Father common to them all who is over all that is as we said before who alone ruleth over all with the highest Sovereignty and doth alike guide and govern all and is also through all that is doth by his providence diffuse himself through all passeth through all the Members of the Christian Body and by his goodness reacheth unto all or which cometh to the same purpose is as it were conversant amongst all and is in the middle of them namely by his help aid and providence finally is in all that is dwelleth in all by his Spirit for they to whom all these things are common ought to be most closely united amongst themselves But what relation is there between the Spirit and Christians if by that name you understand the spiritual Essence of God how will that be common to all Christians for neither is it possessed by them as the things of the former sort by us reckoned up likewise it hath not a relation unto them as the word Lord God and Father Doth not the thing it self shew that if you will by this word understand a divine Spirit you must of necessity understand the holy Spirit common to all the Faithful wherewith they are as it were animated and guided for then he will be in the number of those good things which they by the divine bounty do obtain neither indeed ought the mention of him at any hand to be here omitted partly because the holy Spirit is of essential note amongst the good things common to Christians which unite them one to another in that he erecteth and sealeth them to the hope of the same happiness Whence the Apostle speaking of the same thing to the Christians after he had said that Christ or his Church is one body as it were compacted of divers members he addeth * 1 Cor. 12.13 For with one Spirit we have all been baptized into one body whether Jews or Greeks whether bond or free and we have all been drenched into one Spirit for the same cause he had in the precedent †Ver. 4. and 7. words in the same place discoursed much concerning the Unity of the Spirit lest because of such different faculties which he did put forth in different Christians they should account one another for strangers or at least in comparison of themselves dispise them who had attained lesser gifts and that they might on the contrary acknowledge one another to be different members indeed but yet of the same body since they were as it were inlivened with the same Spirit of God why therefore in this place where the Apostle handleth the same thing should he not expresly mention that Unity of the holy Spirit wherewith Christians were †That is Anointed or filled imbued add hereunto that the Apostle in the words immediately following as also in that place to the Corinthians doth discourse touching the diversities of the gifts or effects of the holy Spirit given to Christians so that there is no doubt but that he had first spoken concerning the Unity of that Spirit as in the other place But wher is he to be supposed to have mentioned it but when he spake of One Spirit unless perhaps he would have him comprehended under the name of one Baptism which notwithstanding they themselves do not admit who stifly contend that the Apostle speaketh of Water Baptism nor are we against it and certainly if it be here spoken of a divine Spirit and not of the mind and will in regard of which the Faithful ought to be one Spirit there is no doubt but the Apostle speaketh of the holy Spirit But if by one Spirit you understand the holy Spirit there is no cause why you should not by * 1 Cor. 8.6 one Lord understand Christ as in the foresaid place we see it done and consequently by the Father that which othetwise the word it self requireth the Father of Jesus Christ I suppose we have sufficiently shewn that by the name of Father in that place to the Ephesians is none meant save the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and consequently none but he is by Paul held to be that one God Now if any one will fly to Appropreation or Attribution devised by some in this business he may easily be confuted if one consider these things which we have spoken thereof in the foregoing Chapter when we examined the first Answer to our Argument drawn out of that place so that there is no need any longer to insist upon it CHAP. IIII. The fourth Argument drawn from the words of Christ Mat. 24.36 But of that day and hour knoweth none no not the Angels of the Heavens but the Father only and Mark 13.32 But of the day and hour knoweth none no not the Angels in the Heavens no not the Son but the Father BEfore we go from the places which make express mention of the Father Arg. 4 from Mat. 24.39 and Mark 13.32 we think good to add an Argument more fetcht from the words of Christ Mat. 24. Mark 13. wherein he openly affirmeth that the Father only or which is all one that none but the Father did know of that day or hour namely of the last judgment or his coming for our Opinion is hence most clearly demonstrated for he who only sometimes knew the day or hour of the last judgment is only the most high God But by the testimony of Christ the Father only sometimes knew that day or hour Wherefore he only is the most high God The truth of the major Proposition as they call it is apparent to every one for he who only sometimes knew all things is also only the most high God for the most high God ever doth and did know all things But he who only sometimes knew the day of the last judgement did then only know all things for he that was ignorant of that day did not absolutely know all things wherefore he who only sometimes knew the day of the last judgement is also only the most high God If any thing pertaineth to the defence of this Argument although it is so clear and strong as not to need it we will speak of it * Sect. 8. Chap. 9. hereafter when we shall treat of Christ Arg. 5 from 1. Cor. 12.4 5 6. Now follows
Whereas the word according as it is used by the Adversaries includeth the relation of a part but if you take that expression as if it were said by the humane Nrture then both the Father and holy Spirit might do something according to the humane Nature of Christ though perhaps the Father not as the nearest cause and such as immediately moveth the humane Nature but the holy Spirit dwelling therein even as the nearest cause and immediately moving that Nature Again it is likewise understood from what hath been spoken that that distinction of Natures cannot cause that it may rightly be said that Christ is the Mediator of himself not only because it is incongruous to say that his Person doth do any thing according to the humane Nature if that Person be the very supream God but also because from that Opinion of the Adversaries it would follow that the very divine Nature of Christ doth primarily and properly discharge the Office of a Mediator although it make use of the humane nature in this behalf for it would be necessary that the same divine Nature should intervene in the middle between it self and Men which every one seeth to be absurd Finally it is understood that this distinction of Natures cannot cause that Christ the Mediator should be distinguished from God if Christ be very God himself Add hereunto that none but those things are simply distinguisht one from another of whom it may be simply affirmed that the one of them is not the other But in this place God and Christ who is said to be his Mediator are simply distinguished one from another wherefore neither is that God Christ nor Christ that God for the distinction of Natures cannot cause that any thing should be simply denied of some subject which for another Nature is to be simply affirmed thereof as we will shew more at large Chap. 3. of the following Section Wherefore neither can it cause that any thing should be simply distinguished from that which is to be simply predicated of it inasmuch as such a distinction as we have seen doth tacitly involve a simple negation of one in relation to the other Neither can any one here say that Christ in the words of the Apostle is therefore rightly distinguished from God and so tacitly denied that he is that one God because by the name of God or that One God the whole Trinity is understood whereas Christ is not the whole Trinity for by this reckoning it might be said that the Father himself is not God or that one God because the Father is not the whole Trinity But who could endure to hear one so speaking certainly he would openly contradict the Scripture who durst to speak in that manner Besides the very Adversaries themselves do not suppose the name of God or that one God to be collective that is so joyntly signifying three Persons that it cannot be predicated of each apart for in predicating they hold that name hath the nature of an universal so that it may be predicated of every Person in particular For instance The Father is that one God the Son is that one God the holy Spirit is that one God wherefore Christ was not therefore distinguisht from that one God and so tacitly denied to be that one God because he is not the whole Trinity but because he simply is not that one God Some one will perhaps say as it followeth not That Christ is not a man because he is the Mediator of men since he is rather therefore a Man because he is the Mediator of Men Whence the Apostle expresly saith That there is one Mediator of God and Men the Man Christ Jesus So neither from thence that Christ is said to be the Mediator of God I say the most high and only God doth it follow that he is not the most high and only God This though it be more pertinent to the second Section of this book shall notwithstanding receive a brief answer especially because the thing doth not need any long dispute for who seeth not when Christ is said to be the Mediator of Men that by the name of Men other men besides Christ are understood who were either wholy alienated from God or not so joyned but that they might be more closely joyned in a new Covenant by a Mediator but certainly Christ was not in the number of them wherefore we may rather retort this Argument upon the Adversaries for as Christ was not in the number of those men whose Mediator he was nor is comprehended under them in this place of Paul so neither is the same Christ that God or comprehended under the name of that God whose Mediator he is said to be Finally If the whole Trinity were comprehended under the name of that God whose Mediator Christ is he would also be the Mediator of the holy Spirit But this is disentanious to the truth for there would be open testimonies thereof extant in the Tables of the Covenant whose mediator Christ was But what are they We require not such places of Scripture wherein it is expresly said that Christ was the mediator of the holy Spirit but from which it may clearly appear that Christ did so intervene in the midst between the holy Spirit and us as it is needful that a mediator should intervene between them who are to be joyned in Covenant and that he performed the proper part of that Office between him and us According to our Opinion which the most learned Adversaries themselves think not to be false although they say it is imperfect It is the Office of a mediator between God and men to be the messenger of God to men and to strike a League between both and so to cause that men being instructed with the knowledge of the divine Will may address themselves to worship God But the Adversaries commonly suppose that it is the proper Office of Christ the Mediator by fully paying the punishment of all our sins to appease the wrath of God kindled against men and to intercede for them to God which we think pertaineth to a Priest But where is it taught in the Scripture that Christ was the messenger of the holy Spirit to men stroke a League between him and men and brought men indued with the knowledge of his Will to worship him Concerning the Father there are most clear testimonies of the Scripture some whereof we will alledge in the * See Sect. 2. Chap. 4 5 15. following Section Certainly Christ without expressing the Fathers name doth sometimes †John 8.26 27 28. describe him thus He that sent me and changeth this description with the name of the Father There is but one place as far as I can remember alledged out of the Scripture by the Adversaries to prove that Christ was sent by the holy Spirit and it is extant Isa 48.16 where the Prophet according to the vulgar Translation speaketh thus And now the Lord God and his Spirit hath sent me
ultimate scope and object of the same Nor also the whole Trinity held by the Adversaries Otherwise to Christ who would be contained in that Trinity glory would be attributed through himself as through the middle cause For as to the refuge of two Natures that hath no more place here than in the former Testimony since Christ is here considered with relation to the Office which he sustaineth in respect whereof he is the middle cause of divine Worship Whence the Adversaries themselves commonly hold when we are said to worship God through Christ that Christ is considered as Mediator But Mediation as also other Offices agreeth to none but a person as he is such Wherefore one must either say that the humane Nature of Christ is a Person and to be understood by the name of Jesus Christ or hold that Christ here is considered according to his divine Nature also or that it is primarily and directly here understood by the name of Jesus Christ as hath been shewn in the precedent Chapter It remaineth that by the name of the only wise God a certain divine Person and that Superior to Christ be understood For he is more worthy to whom glory is given as to the ultimate scope than the middle cause through which worship is exhibited to him But there is no such Person besides the Father It is in vain here to think of the holy Spirit for to omit that it is not granted that the holy Spirit is so much as a Person this is certain that the holy Spirit is not a Person worthier than the Person of Christ But we have shewn that that Person is such to whom glory is attributed through Christ Besides that the Father is worshipped by Christ is both from * See among other places Eph. 5.20 Col. 3.17 Scripture and the confession of all very manifest But that the holy Spirit is worshipped by Christ what place of the Scripture I say not doth affirm but intimate yea it is so far from saying that he is to be worshipped through Christ that it never simply saith that glory is to be attributed unto him especially in that manner which we here understand nor do we there read that it was ever attributed to him by so much as one man concerning which thing more largely in its own * Sect. 3. Chap. 2. place Neither indeed is there any cause if a certain Person is here to be understood why we should pass by the Father and understand the holy Spirit since glory is here attributed to God as the prime Author of Salvation and of the things belonging thereunto Now that all those things are wont to be ascribed to the Father as the prime Author if not only yet chiefly the Adversaries themselves do not deny and is most apparent from that place of Paul where he saith that the Father is he †1 Cor. 8.6 Rom. 11. ult Of whom are all things Whence also he constituteth him the ultimate end of the worship and honour that proceedeth from us for he is the same of whom are all things and to whom are all things The second * The second place John 5.44 of those places is extant in John where amongst other things Christ speaketh thus unto the Jews How can ye believe who receive Glory from one another and seek not the glory which is from the only God In which place that the Father is understood by the name of the only God First the whole context sheweth where Christ promiscuously mentioneth one while God another while his Father neither is there any the least cause why we should suspect that Christ in the same speech passed from one person to another since none can deny that all things which are attributed unto that God are most rightly ascribed to the Father See now the precedent and following verses yea that whole conference with the Jews beginning from the 17th verse Again Christ speaketh of that God whom the Jews acknowledge for God and concerning whom it was granted amongst them that the Glory proceeding from him is to be sought although they neglect to seek it For he speaketh of a thing which ought to precede Faith on Christ whereof because the Jews were destitute they are therefore here by Christ himself pronounced unfit to believe on him But the Jews did then acknowledge for God no other besides him whom Christ called his Father For that they did either imagine a Trinity to be God or the Son or holy SpiSpirit I suppose there is none that dareth affirm But Christ affirmeth that of his Father chap. 8.54 where he saith It is my Father that glorifieth me whom ye say that he is your God It is therefore apparent that in this place that only God is the same with the Father and the one of no larger extent than the other The third place is extant in †Third place Jude 4. Jude who if you regard his greek words saith that false Teachers who had already insinuated themselves into the Church do deny the only master God and our Lord Jesus Christ For we have already * See the Book of God and his Attributes chap. 14. elsewhere shewn not Christ as many of the Adversaries suppose but some other is understood by the only master God For first if he had understood Christ there would have been no need after he had called him the only master God to name him our Lord especially since the word Master doth comprehend all the force of the word Lord. Again neither can Christ be called the only master God since his Father so is and is so †See Luke 2.29 c. Acts 4.24 compare v. 24 with ver 30. called Master that being designed by this very name he is distinguished from Christ Neither is Christ any where called Master the greek word being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Jude maketh use of in the whole new Testament but the Father is found so stiled No marvel because in the great House of God Christ it not the Master but the Son of the Master of the Family and hath God for his Head as shall be spoken in its place But the Master of the Family hath not a Head in the House but is therein the chiefest Lord and Governour Now whereas some urge the Unity of the Article set before those words the only Master God and our Lord Jesus Christ they prevail nothing thereby For the Unity of an Article set before divers names doth not presently argue the Identity of the thing but often times doth only intimate some affinity or conjunction of divers things as namely of those which concur to the same action or about which the same action is conversant See Mat. 3.7 16.1 6.17 1.27 27.56 Ephes 2.20 3.5 4.11 1 Thes 1.8 Heb. 9.19 Certainly * See Beza's Annot on Ephes 4.11 5.5 some very learned men among the Adversaries when they had in this Argument urged the unity
that the Father doth yet can he do nothing of himself but those things only which the Father gave him a power to do wherefore in respect of the working it self he is equal to the Father in respect of the manner of working unequal For the Father worketh of himself but he only as the Father sheweth him or giveth him power wisdom and authority But herein is no Blasphemy no Arrogancy no Crime Add hereunto that that very equality which is seen in the very workers considered by themselves is not altogether absolute In that the Father will yet shew him greater works and consequently something may be yet added to that equality Finally If Christ had spoken of himself in respect of the humane Nature only when he said that he could do nothing of himself and in the mean time would have had it understood that he in respect of the divine Nature could do all things of himself he had not or rather ought not to have opposed the Father especially alone to himself in that matter but himself considered according to the divine Nature to himself look'd upon according to the humane But Christ doth not this but the other whilst he subjon'd unless he see the Father doing Also For the Father loveth the Son and sheweth to him all things whiâ—h himself doth and will shew him greater works than these For besides that the reason of the opposition doth more rightly consist if one nature of Christ be opposed to another Nature that is of a different disposition in relation to the thing spoken of than if the same should be opposed to another person no just cause can be imagined why Christ when in respect of one nature he had denied that the Son could do any thing of himself should not in respect of the other nature openly affirm of the same Son that he could do all things of himself since there was no greater cause to deny that than to affirm this That I may not say that there was greater cause to affirm this than to deny that since the question was concerning the equality of the Son and that as he is the Son with the Father Add hereunto that the divine Nature of Christ would have been the more near and proper Cause of that faculty of doing Miracles which he had received according to the humane Nature than the Father Unless perhaps you will have the divine Nature in him to be idle Wherefore the power was to be ascribed to it rather than to the Father Now whereas some affirm that Christ attributed his works rather to the Father than to his own divine Nature that he might give to the Father a Prerogative above himself this very thing overthroweth their Opinion and establisheth ours especially since it is necessary that that Prerogative should consist in this namely that the Father be held to do all things of himself the Son only by a power received from the Father For by this very thing Christ is denied to be the most high God whilst another is acknowledged to whom a Prerogative above him doth agree and whilst it is affirmed that he doth all things by a power in what manner soever received from another On the contrary the Father is alone held to be the most high God whilst to him only as the prime Cause the works of Christ are ascribed and a Prerogative attributed to him above Christ That now remaineth which we undertook to demonstrate in the third place namely that the very Distinction which the Adversaries use whilst they say that some things agree or not agree to Christ or the Son of God according to the divine others according to the humane Nature doth overthrow their Opinion concerning Christ For from this very thing it followes that the Son of God is not a person of supream Divinity the reason whereof we have somewhere already toucht For whilst the Adversaries thus distinguish they shew that the humane Nature is a part of the person of Christ and pertaineth to the constitution thereof But a humane Nature cannot be a part of a person endued with supream Divinity nor concur to the constitution thereof For whether you hold the divine person to be the divine Nature endued with a subsistence or the very subsistence it self of the divine Nature the humane Nature can neither way be a part thereof For neither is it a part of the divine Nature nor of a subsistence since neither is constituted of divers parts and both existed entire from all Eternity and consequently a humane Nature can constitute neither Certainly it is necessary to hold two persons in Christ one simple which existed from all Eternity the other compounded of a humane and divine Nature though by this means a divine person would become part of another so cease to be a person or they must bid farewel to that distinction of Nature But of this thing more in its * Lib. 2. Sect. 2. Chap. 6. place We have dwelt longer on this place of John partly because as any place doth more evidently overthrow the tenet of the Adversaries and this is one of the most evident so have they for the most part taken more pains in obscuring and turning it from the genuine sense partly because many things which have been spoken thereof will be profitable in the following places in as much as the Adversaries are wont to make answers to them either both these wayes which we have discust or at least one of them CHAP. IIII. The fourth Argument fetcht from those places in John wherein it is denied That Christ is the Prime Author of his Doctrine NOw that we may proceed to other places in John wherein some thing is denyed of Christ which could not be denyed of him if he were the most high God to that passage which we have examined in the precedent Chapter those are of kin wherein Christ denies that he is the prime Author of that Doctrine which he publisheth which places are in great number and in some of them mention is made also of works of which he maketh the prime Author not himself but the Father no less than in the precedent testimony For Chap. 7.16 17 18. when the Jews admired how he knew letters having not learnt them Jesus answered them and said My Doctrine is not mine but his that sent me If any one will do his Will he shall know of the Doctrine whether it be from God or whether I speak of my self He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory but whosoever seeks his Glory that sent him he is true and there is no unrighteousness in him And Chap. 8.28 When ye shall have lifted up the Son of Man then shall ye know that I am he and do nothing of my self but as the Father hath taught me I speak these things And chap. 12.49 50. I have not spoken of my self but the Father that sent me he gave me a Commandment what I should say and what I should
speak and I know that his Commandment is eternal Life What things therefore I speak as the Father hath said unto me so I speak And chap. 14.10 The Word that I speak I speak not of my self but the Father that abideth in me he doth the works Where under the name of works his words also are to be included as the very opposition sheweth and afterwards in the same chapter ver 24. The Word which ye have heard is not mine but the Fathers that sent me To which belong also many other Testimonies which are extant in the same Writer chap. 8. 38 40. and 15. 15 17. and 8. 14. and chap. 3. 11 32 34. Wherein we read that Christ saw those things which he spake with the Father heard them from God or the Father And that they were given him from the Father and that they were the words and speech of God or the Father from whence it is apparent that Christ is not the most high God For the most high God is the first and highest Cause of all things neither can it in any sort be said of him that his Doctrine is not his Arg. 4 Christ is not the Prime Author of his Doctrine but another persons and that he speaketh not of himself as is apparent from the proof of the major Proposition of the foregoing Argument But we say that those things are very frequently and plainly said of Christ and he constituted not the first but the second and middle cause of his Doctrine The Defence of the Argument THat the refuge of the distinction of Natures hath here no place we shewed in the last Argument when we refuted the second Answer for here Christ simply and without any limitation denieth that his Doctrine is his and that he spake of himself Therefore it is necessary that he spake of himself how great soever especially since he wholly attributeth what he denyeth of himself not to another Nature of his but to another Person namely the Father and consequâ—ntly doth therein oppose not one Nature to another but one Person to anoâ—her that is himself to the Father For were that the meaning of the words which the Adversaries using that distinction would have he must have said My Doctrine is not mine according to the humane Nature but according to the divine or is mine not as I am Man but as I am God and not My Doctrine is not mine but his that sent me to wit the Father And in that passage chap. 14.10 how unsuitable was it for him were the Adversaries Opinion true having omitted the mention of his divine Nature to say But the Father that abideth or dwelleth in me he doth the work Where his words also are to be understood as we have already hinted For when he would intimate the intrinsecal cause of his work or the cause dwelling in him why did he not rather name his divine Nature essentially dwelling in him and proper to him than a Person different from him Why when he had named the Father did he that he might more significantly exclude himself presently add the pronoun he as if he should say the Father simply doth the work Is it not manifest that Christ would distinguish himself wholly how great soever he is from the prime Cause of his Works and Words and having taken it away from himself ascribed it entirely to the Father Add hereunto that Christ when he saith My Doctrine or My Word would have it so far forth understood to be his Doctrine or Word as it was most belonging unto him and it was most his according to the opinion of the Adversaries as he was a divine Person from whom no less than from the Father that Doctrine had originally proceeded Wherefore when he had spoken this and desired to have it understood there was no cause why he should rather ascribe it to the Father then to himself or his divine Nature although divers natures had place in him Finally this thing doth here quite exclude the distinction of Natures that Christ doth here manifestly consider himself as he sustained the Office of a divine Embassadour But that Office agreeth to none but a Person as such Wherefore it is either to be held that Christ here speaketh of the divine Nature or to be confessed that Christ is not a Person of supream Divinity For as we have shewn in the foregoing chapter and will * Lib. 2. Sect 1. Chap. 14. elsewhere shew more largely a divine Person is nothing but the very divine Nature having its subsistence Besides the Adversaries will have it that Christ was first sent according to his divine Nature for they hold that the Son was sent from the Father out of Heaven to assume Flesh and consequently to undertake the business of Mans Salvation But if Christ according to his divine Nature yea according to this in the first place is the Embassadour of the Father why are those things which are attributed to him as the Embassadour of the Father restrained to the humane Nature only and not rather ascribed to whole Christ how great soever he is But if any one will have it that in these and other the like places a Prerogative is attributed to the Father above Christ and that as Christ is God as indeed the words altogether require it he must with all of necessity confess that Christ is not the most high God but that on the contrary the Father only since such a Prerogative agreeth to no other and Christ ascribeth to him entirely without making mention of any other person both his Doctrine and Works is the most high God concerning which thing it hath been spoken in the Defence of the precedent Arguments CHAP. V. Argument the fifth fetcht from those places in John wherein Christ is denyed to have come of himself LIke to the former are those places wherein Christ denyeth that he came of himself affirming that he was sent by the Father For thus he speaketh chap. 7.28 29. Whence I am ye know and I came not of my self but he is true that sent me whom ye know not but I know him because I am from him and he sent me And chap. 8.42 If God were your Father you would love me for I went out from God and am come for neither came I of my self but he sent me And chap. 5.43 he had said I am come in the name of my Father and ye received me not if another come in his own name him ye will receive But if Christ is the most high God how did he not come of himself For to come of ones self is to come of his own accord or relying on his own Authority and to discharge an office amongst men But how can the most high God be said to do that which he doth not of his own accord and authority but anothers Certainly although the Father and Son were divers Persons in the same divine Essence yet could not one be sent or come from the other
according to the divine Nature and to be wrested to his Generation out of the Essence which the Father made from all Eternity which though it be absurd and besides other things repugnant to the words of Paul Act. 13.32 33. so to this very place doth yet exclude their exception concerning the humane Nature according to which this very place is to be taken of Christ Finally would the divine Author here have spoken of a certain Nature only and not of the whole Person of Christ he would not have opposed Christ to the Father but to himself according to the divine Nature and what he had taken away from the humane he would have attributed to the divine but that he neither did nor could do For if Christ was in that very thing made an high Priest by God as he was begotten by God and consequently became the Son of God as we manifestly see the divine Author intimates he could not be made an high Priest by himself no not considered according to the divine Nature otherwise Christ would have been begotten of himself considered according to the divine Nature and so would be his own Son and the divine Nature might say to him Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee Which how absurd it is and repugnant to its self every one perceiveth Now therefore he at length shall rightly understand this place and the Authors reasoning who observes that Christ is chiefly called the Son of God as by his favour he hath attained the greatest similitude with God and that Christ was never made more like to God than when he obtained the perpetual Government of the house of God and the Office of eternally looking to and saving the People of God Which thing is contained in this Priesthood for the divine Author opposeth nor that Office to the Kingly but in some sort includeth this in that But let those things be here spoken by the by in that they will prove advantagious hereafter CHAP. XIV Argument the fourteenth from the words of Christ John 14.28 My Father is greater than I. VVE have hitherto reckoned up not a few places wherein something is denyed of Christ which could not be denyed of him if he were the most high God It follows that we take a view of those places wherein something is attributed to him which could not be attributed if he were the most high God and that such in the first place wherein some Prerogative is ascribed to the Father above him and so the Father made superior to Christ Arg. 14 from John 14.28 of which sort those also were which we have hitherto alledged We will again begin from John in whom there are very many Testimonies of this kind also amongst which we will give the first place to that wherein Christ with most open words professeth that the Father is greater than he as he doth chap. 4.28 Where he saith My Father is greater than I to which ought to be added that place chap. 10.29 where the same Christ saith My Father which gave them me namely the Sheep is greater than all Where under the name of those All Christ himself also is included as both the collation with those words chap. 14. and also that doth shew that in the same place he attributeth to the Father the giving of those Sheep unto him and consequently unto himself the receiving of them from the Father But none can be greater than the most high God The Defence of the Argument HEre many of the antient Authors did grant that Christ speaketh of himself even as he is the Son of God and saith that the Father is greater than himself in as much as the name of Father signifieth the Principle and as the Greeks speak the cause of the Son Thus besides others that Popish Interpreter * John Maldonatus whom we have above quoted saith it is expounded by Athanasius Hilary Epiphanius Gregory Nazianzen Cesarius Cyril Damascen Chrysostom Leontius Theophilact Euthymius citing the places of them to that purpose But I know not saith he whether they granted more to the Adversaries namely the Arrians with whom they did dispute than was meet Indeed this acute man saw that it followeth thence that Christ even as he is the Son of God is not the most high God in that the Father is greater than he as such concerning which thing we have already above †Sect. 1. Chap. 1. sufficiently spoken Add hereunto that that fashion wherein they make the Father greater than Christ makes nothing to the purpose of Christ for Christ there renders a reason of that which he had last spoken namely If ye love me ye would rejoyce because I go to the Father By which words he signifieth that some good or happiness should arrive to him when he was gone away to the Father and consequently that the Disciples ought to rejoyce even for his sake that he went away to the Father as very learned men before us have observed But what maketh it to the purpose that the Father is greater than Christ as he is the Fountain of his divine either Nature or Person and begat him from Eternity out of his Essence doth not the thing it self hint that Christ would signifie that the Father was greater than he as he was more blessed glorious powerful and that he himself when he was more nearly joyned with the Father and received into his own seat should be partaker of the same Blessedness Glory Power and Empire But there is no need to labour much in refuting the Interpretation of the Antients since at this day there is scarce any one that followeth it For latter Writers observing that by such an Interpretation the Arrians Opinion touching the Divinity of Christ is not a little established they chiefly seized on that answer which also not a few of the Antients made use that Christ there spake not of himself according to the divine but only according to the humane Nature Which answer may be refuted by the same reason in a manner which above chap. 3. of this Section we alledged if you change a few things in some of them For not to repeat those things now whereby we have taught that there is no example of such a distinction in the Scriptures yea that this very distinction overthroweth the Opinion of the Adversaries concerning the Person of Christ we have shewn that that cannot be simply denyed of the whole which may and is wont or rather altogether ought to be simply affirmed of the same although it agree not to it according to some one part especially the less worthy Whence it followeth that also on the contrary that cannot be simply affirmed of some whole which may and is wont or rather ought to be simply denyed of the same whole although it doth agree to it according to some part especially the less worthy Now if Christ be the most high God equal to the Father in all things as the Adversaries affirm
and that without any limitation and simply yea ought simply to be denyed of him that the Father is greater than he For neither is it more lawful simply to affirm of him that he is the most high God and equal to the Father in all things than to deny that the Father is greater than he or that he is less than the Father Wherefore neither could Christ simply affirm of himself if he were the most high God that the Father is greater than he Add hereunto that such an affirmation My Father is greater than I is of equal force with such a Negation I am not so great as my Father as every one seeth by himself and the scope of these words before mentioned by us doth teach for Christ would signifie that he did yet want something which the Father hath and therefore that he also may attain the same he must go away unto the Father Wherefore since we have taught that what may or ought to be simply affirmed of the whole cannot be denyed of the same whole Christ could not thus speak of himself if for another and that a better Nature he would have the contrary understood of him Again since he who speaketh is the very Son of God for he saith My Father is greater than I thereby intimating that God the Father is greater than his Son either it is necessary to say that the Father is greater than the very divine Nature of Christ which the Adversaries by that very distinction of theirs endeavour to avoid or confess that the Son of God is not a person of supream Deity since a person of supream Deity is no other than the very divine Nature having its subsistence as we have above said chap. 3. Besides the Interpretation of the Adversaries doth altogether enervate the force of Christs words and render them invalid to his purpose For we saw that therefore Christ uttered those words that the Disciples might see that he must go away to the Father to the end he might enjoy greater happiness and therefore should not only abstain from sorrow but also rejoyce that he went a way but if Christ according to one Nature only had been less than the Father and in the mean time had in himself a Nature or Person equal to the Father in all things there would have been no need for him to go to the Father as greater to the end he might enjoy greater happiness nor would the Disciples have had cause to rejoyce that he went away from them but rather to grieve in that he would go away where as he might stay and they might presently object to the Lord yea why dost thou go away to the Father as greater than thou since thou art endued with such a Nature or Person as is equal to the Father in all things and that Nâ—ture is alwayes intimately present with thee even whilst thou art conversant with us on the Earth why rather dost thou not stay with us and here procure to thy self that happiness which thou seekest with the Father You see that by this reason if it be taken according to the sense of the Adversaries Christ could have prevailed nothing with the Disciples But he could prevail very much if omitting the distinction of Natures he would have the words taken of him simply and absolutely as they were uttered But there are some learned men of the Adversaries who think that those words of Christ as also many other places in the same John are to be taken neither of the humane Naâ—ure of Christ nor of the divine but of the whole complex * See John Calvins Admonition to the Brethren in Poland as they speak because although he were the eternal God yet when he descended to us he began to be a middle person between God and us But this is of no moment for either they will have it that the Son when he dâ—scended to us ceased to be the most high God or they will not have it If they will have it the Son neither is nor ever was the most high God for he can never cease to be the most high God If they will not have it the Son could not therefore be simply called less than the Father or which is all one the Father greater than he because none is simply yea none is any way greater than the most high God And if the Opinion of the Adversaries concerning Christ be true the Son ought to be termed equal to the Father in all things But as we have shewn before the same cannot be simply both affirmed and denyed of the same whole Again since that whole complex whereof they say that those words of Christ are to be taken is the Person of Christ or the very Son of God as neither they do deny and we have before shewn it is necessary for them to confess either that that Person is not a Person of supream Deity or else that it may be said of the divine Nature that the Father is greater than it as we have a little before demonstrated We forbear to repeat that reason whereby we have confuted the Answer which is now adayes most received among the Adversaries namely that such an Interpretation weakneth the force of Christs words and renders them ineffectual to what he intended For the same reason is also prevalent against this Interpretation for if these words be so to be taken as that nevertheless it may or rather ought to be understood that Christ is the most high God or hath in him the Nature of the most high God they are not effectual to shew that Christ must go away to the Father and his Disciples ought to rejoyce that he would go away to the Father as may be understood by what was formerly spoken Furthermore did Christ therefore call himself less than the Father because he is a middle Person between God and us he would alwayes be less than the Father in that sence even after he ascended into Heaven and sate at the right hand of God the Father since Christ is at this time a middle Person between us and God in that he is a Priest and our Advocate interceding for us with the Father for which cause the Adversaries themselves say that he is now a Mediator But Christ sheweth by these words that he after he was gone away to the Father should be no longer less than he Whence they themselves with whom we have to do affirm that Christ in those words compareth his present state with his heavenly Glory For as we already hinted before because the Son did yet want that Glory to wit Immortality and sublime Authority over all things he was therefore less than the Father having attained the same he is reputed no longer less than the Father For neither is a most exact and altogether absolute equality here to be regarded Wherefore Christ did not therefore say that he was less than the Father or the Father greater than he because he is a
so perfect a signification as Christ is asserted to be a God is likewise a Lord and if he be a God of himself he is also of himself a Lord and therefore cannot any further be made a Lord by another The same may also be confirmed by this Reason The Lordship of Christ is either the same with his Godhead or different from it If the same certainly when he was made a Lord he was also made a God If different it is either equal to his Godhead or less For Christ hath nothing greater than his Godhead If equal though they cannot speak thus who attribute to him the supream and independent Godhead there is the same reason thereof with his Godhead and there is no cause why if he was made Lord he was not also made a God If less it will in like manner follow that he hath not of himself this priviledge of being a God For if he have not of himself that which is less much less that which is greater In which place it is not to be omitted that Ambrose in those very words of Peter instead of the word Lord doth read the name of God as if Peter had said And God hath made him God and Christ this Jesus c. The second Argument is this He to whom that is given or granted for which he ought to be worshipped with divine Worship hath also Godhead given and granted to him For neither is there any thing besides Godhead for which we ought to worship any one with divine Worship or causeth that any one is worthy of that worship But we read how that was given and granted unto Christ for which he ought to be worshipped with divine Worship namely all Judgment and a Name above every name for so as we have seen Christ himself speaketh John 5.22 23. For neither doth the Father judge any one but hath given all judgment to the Son that all might honour the Son at they honour the Father he that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father that sent him And Paul Phil. 2.9 c. saith Wherefore also God hath exceedingly exalted him and given him a Name which is above every name that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in heaven and in the earth and under the earth and that every tongue might confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the Glory of God the Father Now that in both places it is spoken of the divine Honour Adoration which is due to Christ from all both the thing it self sheweth and all confess But that this worship is to be exhibited unto him for all Judgment given him by the Father for a Name given him above every name the same Testimonies do clearly shew The same may easily be proved likewise out of that place in Daniel chap. 7.13 Where Christ is said to have received from the Antient of dayes that is his Father Power and Honour and a Kingdom and it is added that all Peoples Tribes and Tongues should serve him namely for so great Power and the Kingdom given to him For who would not serve his King Now this Service is not meant a civil one as being to be given to one that was not an earthly King but a religious and divine one as to be exhibited to a divine and heavenly King Why then do the greater part of the Adversaries deny that Godhead was given or granted unto Christ And indeed not a few both of the antient modern Interpreters of the Scripture * See among others Corn. a Lapide in this place Joh. 1.1 affirm that when Paul saith there was given unto Christ a Name above every name that the name of a God is there understood because there is no other name extant besides that which is above every name Though therein many are mistaken who conceive that by Name is meant the very Appellation or Title of a God For how was this Appellation given him at length after his death when John saith that the Word or Speech was a God in the beginning namely of that thing whereof he speaketh which is the Gospel Add hereunto that Paul speaketh of the reward which God gave to Christ for so great debasement and obedience to the very death of the Cross But what manner of reward is this to give to any one a Title if you give him not the thing designed by that Title Doth the most bountiful and rich God in this manner render rewards for so great Piety such a reward would be unbeseeming even a Prince or other Potentate Besides when any one hath the thing it self and that most rightfully there is no need to give or grant to him the name whereby that thing is designed especially when that thing hath a name already set and appointed as here it cometh to pass If any one be indeed a King and that very rightfully there is no need to confer upon him the title of a King since none can deny the same unto him but wrongfully But that is said to be conferred which might of right be denyed Wherefore we must understand by that Name not a Title but Dignity or Power as you have it in a like place Ephes 1.21 So that a Name above every name is Dignity and Power higher than all other For this is the proper cause of so great Worship and Honour For as civil Worship is due to earthly and civil Power and divine Worship is due to heavenly and divine as also that place John 5.22 doth shew where it is taught that divine Honour is to be exhibited by all unto Christ for the Power of judging which is the greatest part of his Power yea contained in a manner all Now if the thing be thus why do the Adversaries so insult over us for saying that Christ is a God by the Grace of God the Father that Godhead was given to Christ by the Father and he made and constituted a God by him Why do they upbraid us saying that we have two Gods the one as some are not afraid to jest in so serious a matter an old God the other a young God As if we had either two supream Gods or to have one supream God and another dependent on him and subordinate to him is contrary to the Scripture which expresly affirmeth that there are many Gods and affirmeth in down-right terms that we have one God the Father of whom are all things and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things or as if the Father because he was God from all eternity may therefore be deservedly called an old God or Christ a young God because he is after him in time as a Son is after his Father since old age and youth have place in none but corruptible things but ceaseth in such as are incorruptible and immortal Now if they would have God so to be old as Daniel calleth him the Antient of Dayes to whom he that was like unto the Son of Man was brought and
the holy Spirit and Power who went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the Devil because God was with him Which thing Nicodemus had before acknowledged whilst he thus speaketh unto Christ We know that thou art come a Teacher from God for none can do these things which thou dost unless God be with him John 3.2 But if Christ were the most high God neither would God be said to do these things by him nor ought Peter to alleage this reason why Christ did Miracles namely because God was with him but this because he himself was God or because he had in him the divine Essence or in what manner soever he pleased to express the same thing For that it cannot here be said that by the name of God the divine Nature of Christ is understood but the Father of Christ may be shewn by the same Arguments which we made use of in the defence of the last Argument when we treated of those Testimonies wherein God is said to have given something to Christ or to have conferred something upon him Likewise we have a little before excluded the distinction of Natures But that we may not treat of the sole Miracles of Christ let us add those places of Scripture whereby is shewn that Christ was not the first but the second and intermediate cause of the other actions also which he did and which were most divine and most of all concerned our Salvation And this is understood out of those places wherein it is affirmed That all things were done by him as John 1.3 That all things were created in him that is by him For that In is after the Hebrew manner every where taken for by is most notorious unto all Col. 1.16 which is presently explained in the same verse whilst all things are said to have been created by him For whereas the vulgar translation doth there add that all things are created in him the Greek hath it for him and signifieth the end Thus a little after it is in the same place said that it pleased him namely God by him to reconcile all things which are in Heaven and in Earth Else where likewise All things are said to be by him 1 Cor. 8.6 of which place we have before * Sect. 1. chap. 2. treated where also we have shewn that it ought not to be taken in that manner as it is once and again said of God himself That all things are by him For that it is not so taken of God as if some other who is the supream Cause of the work did do something by him but simply that he is the efficient Cause of all things or that by his Power and Operation all things are brought to an issue But that it is said of Christ more than once that some other namely God whom every one knoweth to be the supream Cause of Works doth or did all things by Christ For amongst other things the Apostle saith Ephes 3.9 Who God created all things by Jesus Christ as the Greek Copies constantly read it and the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 1.2 when he had said that God in these last times speak to us in the Son that is by the Son according to the Hebrewism a little before observed he addeth By whom also he made the Worlds namely that God who spake unto us by him So also 2 Cor. 5 18. it is said That all things are of God who hath reconciled us unto himself by Jesus Christ Elsewhere That God hath given us the victory by our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Cor. 15.57 That God hath poured the holy Spirit abundantly upon us by Jesus Christ our Saviour Tit. 3.5 That God shall judge the secrets of men according to Pauls Gospel by Jesus Christ Rom. 2.16 To pass by other-like places from all which it appeareth that Christ is not the most high God For he is the first and highest Cause of all things which he doth not the second or intermediate But those places shew that Christ is the intermediate not the first and supream Cause of those thing which he doth otherwise it could not be said that God doth all things by him But if any one say that Paul affirmeth that he gave to the Thessalonians commandments by our Lord Jesus Christ or exhorteth them by Christ although Christ seemeth not to have been the middle cause of that action in respect of Paul but Paul rather in respect of Christ We answer That that signification which is also otherwise rare in the holy Scripture cannot there have any place where God is said to have done either all things or somethings by Jesus Christ as that very thing we even now speak by way of objection to our selves doth teach For in that manner that Paul saith he gave commandments or exhorteth by the Lord Jesus none but an Inferiour can do something by a Superiour for it signifieth that he did or doth these things by the Authority of the Lord Jesus interposed and that he supported his commandments and exhortations herewith But God can do nothing by any one in this manner It therefore remaineth that the most usual signification of the particle By is there to be retained where God is said to do something by Christ namely that God be esteemed the first and principal Agent Christ the second and intermediate one which dependeth on him Which is further confirmed by that famous place of Paul which is extant 1 Cor. 1.30 where the Apostle compriseth all the benefits which God hath conferred upon us by Christ whilst he speaketh thus of him namely God Ye are in Christ Jesus who hath been made unto us of God Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption You see that he is made not the prime Author of our Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption but the second cause and dependent on a former one namely God in as much as he is expresly said to be made unto us of God Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption and Freedom which likewise was signified by the precedent words wherein the Corinthians namely as they were Christians are said to be of God in Christ Jesus or by Christ Jesus There is a place like unto this Heb. 5.9 10. where it is said that Christ being made perfect was made the cause of eternal Salvation to all that obey him being called of God an high Priest after the order of Melchisedec You see that he was made the cause of eternal Salvation and that as he was called of God an high Priest With this place agreeth that which we have formerly cited out of the Acts chap. 5.31 where God is said with his right hand to have exalted Christ to be a Prince and Saviour to give Repentance unto Israel and foregiveness of sins To these add those places which spake of the effusion of the holy Spirit made by Christ which action is one of the most notable ones that pertaineth to the Salvation of mankind and to omit the
into the Heavens they are not incident to the most high God For he as all confess is not moved out of his place But if you so take them as that they signifie that Christ had God the Father as the Author of his Embassy to whom he shal return as it may easily be understood out of the ver 42. of the same chapter neither doth this argue him to be the most high God but rather inferiour to the most high God and depending on him and having a different Essence from him But there is no other sence of these words remaining For if you say that Christ therefore came out from God because he was eternally begotten of his Essence as they against whom we chiefly dispute seem to hold this is quite forreign to the place For it appeareth manifestly enough that the going of Christ forth from his Father was joyned with his coming into the world as his return to God was with his leaving of the world and consequently that the discourse is of a thing that was done at a certain time and not from all eternity which is also manifest enough from the 42d verse a little before quoted And withal it is likewise apparent that this going forth from the Father is such a thing us may elegantly be opposed to his return to the Father and cannot co-exist therewith But what opposition is there between eternal generation out of the Essence of the Father and a return to the Father from the Earth into Heaven Or why cannot that return to the Father co-exist with that Generation if it as the Adversaries must of necessity hold doth as yet continue CHAP. XXII Argument the two and twentieth from the words of Christ John 8.29 The Father hath not left me alone because I alwayes do the things that are pleasing unto him THe ninth Testimony of this kind is extant in the same 8th chapter of John ver 29. where Christ spaketh thus And he that sent me is with me The Father hath not left me alone because I alwayes do things that are pleasing to him The former part of which sentence is also afterwards extant chap. 16.32 where Christ thus speaketh to his Disciples Behold the hour cometh and now is wherein shall every one of you be dispersed to your own homes and leave me alone yet I am not alone because the Father is with me From which place it followeth that Christ is not the most high God and out of the former for a double reason First Because Christ doth â—y the words of both places intimate that he should not have sufficient help and assistance if he weâ—e forsaken by the Father which cannot be thought of the most high God For he hath alwayes of himself abundance of help and assistance Arg. 22 from Joh. 8.29 nor is there any need that any oâ—e should be present wiâ—h him and give him help Again weâ—e Christ the most high God of the same Essence with the Father he ought not to bring nor consequently would he have brought the reason why the Father was with him because he alwayes doth the things that are pleasing unto him but this because he is of one Essenâ—e with him For tâ—is would indeed have been both the necessary and the only cause why the Father was with Christ which being supposed he could not chuse but â—e with Christ and whereunto other causes that might be imagined could not possibly add any furtâ—er moment For that conjunction would not only have preceded those causes in time â—ut would have likewise been already at the height and so compleat and aâ—solute that the Fatâ—er and Christ could not as yet be joyned toâ—ether with any sinner or sâ—â—aiter tye The Defence of the Argument VVHen they * Maldonaâ—us with the Authors which he cites who endeavoured to turn the precedent place also to a contrary sense did see the force of this latter Argument they said that the particle For doth signifie not the cause but ratâ—er the effect and sign or argument drawn from the consequence for that the Father was not therefore with Christ because he did the things that were pleasing to him as if he would not have been with him but on the contrary that Christ theâ—efore did these things because the Father was with him For there a e innumerable examples even in the very Psalm where the particle For is so used out of which they produce that Psal 17.6 I cried because thou hast heard me O God For he did not therefore cry because he was heard but was therefoâ—e heard because he cryed But what cause was there that drove them to depart from the usual and simple signification of that particle which here presently cometh into the mind of every one Certainly none but the opinion whereof we now here dispute for they saw that otherwise this place would not comply with their Doctrine concerning Christ Howbeit this use of the particle For is not so frequent as they say especially in the New Testament and that example fetched out of the Psalms is not to the purpose For to omit that it is not read in the Hebrew For thou hast heard me â—ut in the future for thou wilt hear me which may contain the cause why David cryed to God namely â—ecâ—use he was certainly perswaded that he should be heard of God It is fu ther well known that amongst the Hebrews †See among innumerable ones Psal 1.1 2.1.10.31 6.10 17.11.1.7.12.5.14.1.15.3 4 5. pâ—eterperfect as well as future ‖ Psal 1.2 3 4.2 1 2 4 5.4.6 7 10.7.9 8.4 See Vataâ—â— and the Heb. Text on these places tenses are fâ—equently taken for present tenses do like present tenses among the Latines denote a frequency or custome of action As if David should have said Because tâ—ou art wont to heaâ— me whence also certain late * See the Bibles of Vatab. Jun and Tremel Writers do thus translate the place Because thou hearest me but may not this denote the cause for which David cried unto God Yea most of all For it doth most of all encourage us to pray unto God in that we see that God is wont to hear us Againe if Christ would have reasoned from thence that he alwayes did those things that are pleasing to the Father as from an effect he had taken that as sufficiently known to the Jews with whom he discoursed that â—e alwayes did the things that were pleasing to the Father But Christ doth not do this for otherwise he ought likewise to suppose this as mâ—nifest enough to the Jews that he did nothing of himself but so spake as the Father taught him For every one seeth if Christ alwayes did those things that pleased the Father that he also did nothing of himself or of his own accord nor spake any thing besides what the Father had taught him But this latter Christ doth not suppose as manifest to the Jews but affirmeth that it should then be known unto
them when tâ—ey had exalted him as is apparent from the preceding words Wherefore neither doth he suppose the former to be manifest unto them as the opinion of these men requireth Besides if Christ would have reasoned from effects he would ratâ—er have alledged his miraculous works than works of virtue and piety For they were the most manifest effects of his conjunction with the Father to which he elsewheâ—e likewise frequently appealeth when he spake of his conjunction with the Father or of some like thing as we read in the same Writer See Chap. 5.36 and 10.37 38. and 14.11 15.24 Furthermore if it appeareth from other places that this was the true cause why God was with Christ in that he alwayes did the things that pleased him their reason for whicâ— they think they must here depart from the usual and simple signification of the particle for falleth to the ground But that the thing is so is thence apparent in that Christ himself doth elsewhere render this as the reason wâ—y God did coâ—sequently love him consequently was always with him by his assistance namely because he had done and would hereafter doe those things that were pleasing to the Father and agreeable to his commandments Now it is all one for the Father not to leave Christ but to be present with him and constantly to love Christ and to be perpetually with him by his help and assistance And that this which we have said was the cause of the Fathers love towards Christ and consequently of the help which he gave him is intimated by the words of Christ which are extant afterwards Chap. 10.17 Therefore the Father loveth me because I lay down my soul that I may receive it again For this Commandment as he himself addeth in the following Verse he had received from the Father And Chap. 15.10 As the Father hath loved me so have I loved you continue in my love If you keep my Commandments ye shall continue in my love as I also have kept the Fathers Commandments and continue in his love Where whatsoever they say with whom we have to do Christ warneth his disciples that having once obtained his love they would use their endeavours not to lose it again but enjoy it perpetually and sheweth them a way how they should certainly attain it which he had also formerly intimated by a similitude in tâ—e 2d Verse namely by keeping his Commandments Moreoâ—er be illustrates this way by his own example shewing it to be the aptest yea the only means of persevering in his love in tâ—at he himself by keeping his Fathers Commandments had obtained this favour to continue in his love that is to be constantly loved of him Wherefore as we said before that reason falleth to the ground for which the particle For should be thought to signifie not the cause but the effect or sign in these words Chap. 8.29 But if it signifieth the cause the thing it self as we have seen doth evince that Christ is not the most high God This Argument of ours cannot be solved by the distinction of natures For first those causes hinder which we have above hinted in other * Chap. 3.14.10 of this Section places as namely that these things are simply spoken of Christ and that it is necessary here to consider him as a person both for his Mission and so also for the operations which he attributeth to himself according to the capacity wherein he is to be considered Again this likewise taketh away the force of that answer that notwithstanding this Christ should rather have alleaged this for the reason why the Father was with him and left him not alone because according to the divine nature to which the humane is personally united he was the same God with the Father CHAP. XXIII The three and twentieth Argument That the Father is called the God of Christ IN the tenth place we will recite those testimonies wherein the Father is called the God of Christ For thus Christ himself speaketh concerning this matter in his discourse with Mary afterward in the same John Chap. 20.17 Go to my brethren and say unto them I ascend to my Father and your Father to my God and your God And in the same Writer Rev. 3.12 In the same Verse 12. he calleth the Father his God four times whilst he saith Whosoever overcometh I will make him a pillar in the Temple of my God and he shall no more go forth and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the City of my God the New Jerusalem which descendeth out of Heaven from my God As for the other Writers first we read in Matth. and Mark that Christ when he hung upon the Cross câ—yed thus to the Father My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Matth. 27.46 Mark 15.34 And Paul Ephes 1.17 wisheth that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ the Father of glory would give unto them the Spirit of wisdom And the divine Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews Chap. 1.8 9. citeth of Christ those words of the Psalmist Psal 45.7 8. spoken heretofore of Solomon as the typâ— of Christ Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever c. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity Therefore O God thy God hath anointed thee with the oyl of gladness above thy fellows Thus also Micah speaketh of Christ Chap. 5.4 And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the Lord in the height of the name of the Lord his God Arg. 23 That the Father is called the God of Christ From whence it appeareth that Christ is not the most high God for the most high God hath not a God or there is no other God of him For to be the God of any one is to have Empire and Power over him or to be his Benefactor or finally to be worshipt of him as his sovereign Benefactor But none hath dominion over the most high God none is his Benefactor none is worshipped of him otherwise he himself would not be the most high God The Defence of the Argument HEere they have no other refuge left them besides the distinction of Natures Though not so much as this is left them in that we have * Chap. 3.14 16. already sufficiently stopt this hole at which they endeavour to get out especially because all the circumstances of those places do argue that it is spoken concerning the whole Person of Christ or that he is considered as a Person For he is considered as the Son of God as our Saviour as our Lord as Anointed of God as God as Prince appointed of God Wherefore he cannot be a Person of supream Godhead otherwise his divine Nature also would have a God besides were Christ the most high God although he also had a humane Nature yet some other or another Person namely the Father would not be his God but he himself would be his own God For he himself would
to whom the Son will reveal him and elsewhere If ye had known me ye would have known my Father also and from henceforth ye know him and a little after He that seeth me seeth the Father But furthermore although Christ was visible according to the humane Nature yet ought he not to be simply distinguished from the invisible God and herein to be opposed to him if he in the mean time were that most high and invisible God For if the name of God namely the most high God may and ought to be absolutely attributed unto Christ as they hold those things also may and ought to be absolutely attributed to him which are absolutely spoken of God and which agree to him in respect of his Essence But if Christ may and ought for the divine Nature to be absolutely called invisible he ought not absolutely to be distinguished from the invisible God Some other will perhaps say that Christ is the Image of God according to the humane Nature which seemeth not disagreeable to their Opinion who together with us confess that Christ is called the Image of God in respect of us namely because he did in himself as it were present to our view the invisible God But in the first place they are not constant enough to themselves whilst they refer that which is the same with the Image of God or at least is of the same efficacy in our Argument to the divine Nature namely that Christ is called the Character of the Substance of God for a Character hath not the same Substance with the thing whose Character it is Again By this means Christ would have been the Image no less of his own divine Person or Nature than of the Fathers neither would there have been any cause why he should be called the Image of another rather than of himself But we find not this but that rather expressed in the Scripture For when Christ is called the Image of God all the Adversaries as far as I know hold that the Father is understood and the distinction of that God from Christ and finally the collation of this kind of speaking with other-like sayings of the Scripture do sufficiently shew the same I omit that Christ did in himself as it were present to our view the invisible God in that he expressed his Will by Doctrine his Power by admirable Works and clearly demonstrated his Faith and Truth by both But these things agree only to a Person as such so that those Adversaries are forced to hold either that his divine Person as such is the Image of the Father or that the humane Nature if they will attribute this to it only is a Person The first of which overthroweth their Answer the latter their Opinion And let these things suffice to have been spoken concerning those Arguments which so shew Christ not to be the most high God as that withal they give a Prerogative to the Father above him CHAP. XXXI The one and thirtieth Argument is chiefly drawn from those causes for which Christ is in the Scriptures called The Son of God VVE must now pass to those Arguments which absolutely shew that Christ is not the most high God without having any regard to this that some Prerogative is withal given to the Father above him Now though we might in this place alleage all the attributes of the Humanity of Jesus Christ as that he was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary that he did eat drink grow that he was weary sometimes and did weep and was disturbed and finally suffered most bitter torments and dyed and the like yea this very thing that he is and was a Man in as much as none of those things can be said of the most high God as they are and that absolutely of Christ yet will we here only alleage those things which contain some other Argument of our Opinion besides that which is common to all those Attributes Now the first shall be this That if Jesus were the most high God he would no otherwise be so then because he is the Son of God For neither can any greater thing be spoken of Jesus Christ Arg. 31 from The Causes why Christ is called the Son of God then that he is the Son of God the Adversaries themselves hold that he received the divine Essence by generation from the Father which maketh him the Son of God But from whence any one hath the divine Essence he hath also from thence that he is God But Jesus is not therefore the most high God because he is the Son of God wherefore neither is he simply the most high God Our Assumption shall not here be proved by this Reason that Jesus whilst he is called the Son of God is thereby distinguished from God namely the supream and only God Nor also that he is by this very name made inferiour to the Father as wholly depending from the Father where as the Father dependeth from none other for these reasons we have before used But we will prove the same by another Argument and that a twofold one Chap. 1 2 of this Section although other things also will be brought in by the by whilst we shall be imployed in proving the former which things would also be fit to demonstrate the very Question or principal Position it self The first is this That whereas several causes are expressed in the holy Scriptures for which Jesus is the Son of God yet none of them is such as constituteth him the most high God in that they all agree to the Man Christ Jesus or that we may speak with the Adversaries agree to Christ according to the humane Nature and began at a certain time Yea they are so far from either constituting or demonstrating Christ to be the most high God as that they rather shew him not to be so and consequently each of them may justly be accounted as so many Arguments to assert our Opinion But it is impossible that if Jesus be the Son of God in such a manner as constituteth him the most high God this thing should be no where set down in Scripture partly because we see other reasons exprest which would be of far less moment than it partly because that Reason as indeed the Adversaries themselves contend would be altogether necessary to be known believed unto salvation so much the more clearly to be explained by the sacred Writers and so much the more diligently frequently to be inculcated by how much it was more removed from our sences and capacity and consequently more difficult to be known and believed For since the sacred Scriptures * Jo. 20.31 1 Jo. 4 15. chap. 5.5 Mat. 16.16 Jo. 6.69 Act. 8.37 Ch. 9.20 doth place the sum of our faith and confession concerning Christ herein that we believe and profess Jesus to be the Son of God namely in the most perfect manner so called it is necessary also that we be sure of the true and
genuine Reason for which he is called such a Son of God For neither is it enough to know and pronounce the words but it is necessary to know and comprehend in the mind the thing it self as far as it falls under our capacity otherwise you shall neither truly believe the thing nor heartily profess it Now the thing that is signified by those words consisteth in the genuine reason for which Jesus is called the Son of God by way of excellency which according to the opinion of the adversarie is because he was from eternity begotten out of the Essence of the Father Neither indeed did this opinion otherwise agree either with it self or with the holy Scriptures would any other reason be more true or genuine If theâ—efore we find not this reason expressed in the holy Scripture but others far different from it we must hold that it is not t e true one The latter Argument wherewith our assumption is confirmed shall afterwards be seen in this Chapter A fuller Confirmation and Defence of this Argument NOw that it may appear that in the Scripture no such reason for which Christ is the son of God is expressed as maketh him the most high God but only such as agree to the humane nature of Christ or to speak more rightly to the man Jesus Christ we will rehearse these places wherein the causes are declared for which Jesus hath been called the Son of God some of which Testimonies at least are so ordereâ— that if Jesus had then already been the Son of God for some better reason and namely because he had from all eternity been generated out of the Esâ—ence of the Father it ought not to have been omitted Now the causes for which Jesus is called the Son of God have a certain order amongst themselves and the latter still addeth something to the former The first Cause why Christ is called the the Son of God Luke 1.35 John Maldonatus and maketh Jesus Christ the Son of God in a moâ—e perfect manner than before The first cause is declared by the Angel in Luke where amongst other things Gabriel thus speaketh unto Mary The holy Spirit shall come upon thee and the power of the most high shall overshadow thee therefore also that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God Where we cannot but set down those things which the most learned Popish Interpreter doth amongst other t ings note upon this place for he rightly both saw and explained the sence of the words And first of all as concerning the last words of this place he noteth that to call doth here signifie to be according to the idiom of the Hebrews who take the consequent or effect for the antecedent cause of which he had also spoken in the 32d vers for there the Angel likewise saith of the Virgins Son that was to be born And he shall be called that is shall â—e the Son of the Most High This Inâ—erpreter hath aleaged examples of that Hebruisme out of Isa 1.26 and the 4.3 to which is also added that place Gen. 21.12 compared with Rom. 9.7 Those likewise might be added Matth. 5.9 19. and 21.13 Isa 56.7 and Luke 1.76 Rom. 9.26 Hos 1.10 Wherefore the same Interpreter doth afterwards justly reprove Calvin who to escape the Argument of Servetus dâ—awn fâ—om those words of the Angel saith that to be called doth here signifie to be declared the Son of God For how saith he can the reason of the Angel agree with this interpretation Therefore the holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God We ought not to abuse the holy Scripture that we may refute Hereticks Again explaining that reason for which the Angel said that Christ should be called that is should be the Son of God he saith all others whom I have seen interpret this as if the Angel spake of Christ as God or at least as man assumed into one person with God in that both wayes Christ is the true and natural Son of God How be it a little aâ—ter he writeth after this manner Though I for my part suppose that the words carry another sense and are not to be understood of Christ as God nor as a man united to a divine person but only of his conception and humane generation as if the Angel should say He shall be called that is be the Son of God because he shall be begotten not by a man but by God through the power of the holy Spirit For neither did the Angel speak concerning the nature of Christ but of the manner of his generation And the cause which he renders why he should be the Son of God in that the holy Spirit should come upon the Virgin and the power of the most high overshadow her was not apt to prove that Christ should be the Son of God as he was God or man assumed into the same person with God because a meer man might be conceived by the supervening of the holy Spirit and overshadowing power of the most high who would be the Son of God neither of those wayes in as much as he was neither God nor joyned to a divine Person But to prove that what was to be born of the Virgin should be the Son of God in such a sence as I have declared the reason of the Angel was very apt in as much as the Child was to be conceived not of a man but of God alone Wherefore although Christ had not been God yet being born in such a manner as he was he had deservedly been called the Son of God not only as other holy men of whom it is said I said ye are Gods and ye are all Sons of the most high but in a singular and proper manner because he had no other Father than God being begotten by no other than him What I pray you could be spoken more aptly and more suitably to the place I was therefore willing to explain the whole matter in his words rather than in mine own that it might with all appear by the testimony of a Papist how evident this opinion is which we defend concerning the reason exprest in these words of the Angel for which Jesus is called the Son of God For what else but the evidence of the thing it self could move a Papist especially of that order to which he was adicted that contrary to the consent of all other Interpreters which he had seen he should follow the opinion which we hold especially since he knew that they whom he judged Hereticks did urge this place for their opinion concerning Christ Although we see that some even of them who are called â—ospellers assent both to him and us in this behalf This then is the first cause See Gualter on this place Je. Zanc. lib. 2. de tribus Elohim for which Jesus was the Son of God in that he was conceived and born not of a man but of God
by our men The third Cause therefore for which Christ is called the Son of God is his resurâ—ection from the dead I say a resurrection to immoâ—tal Life For he is therefore called by Paul The first-born from the dead Col. 1.18 and also by John Rev. 1.5 But whose first-born is he but Gods Although the word Resurrection may so far be extended as to contain the fouâ—th and chief cause for which Christ is called the Son of God namely the exaltation or advancement of Christ to the Empire and soveraign Priesthood as we will afterward more plainly â—â—w Now there is a very notable place which sheweth that Christ is the Son of God by reason of his Resurrection more largely taken wherein the consequent exaltation is also comprehended namely Acts 13.32 33. where Paul speaketh this And we declare unto you the promise which was made unto our Fathers The third Cause why Christ is called the Son God The 4th Cause that God hath fulfilled it unto us their children having raised Jesus as it is also written in the 2d Psal Thou art my Son I this day begot thee A like passage to which is extant Rom. 1.4 where when the â—postle had called Christ the Son of God that he might more fully declare it he add Who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh who was determined the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead In the first place the cause why Jesus is the Son of God is alleaged to be this namely tâ—at he was â—aisd from the dead Now that this reason hath nothing common with the generation out of the Essence of God nothing common with the supream deity which agreeth to Christ is appaâ—eâ—t enough from the th ng it self sinâ—e the Resurrection is a thing of a certain time not done from eternity and agreeth to Christ only according to the humane nature as the Adversaries speak and finally is not ascribed unto Christ as the true author but to God the Father and it is so far from arguing Christ to be the most high God as that it rather demonstrateth him not to be so Chap. 29. as we have before shewn in its own place As for the latter place although these words By the resurrection of the dead may be understood meerly of the time wherein Christ was made the Son of God Nevertheless they sâ—ew manifestly enough that Christ is there said to be made the Son of God for such a cause as had no place in him especially so perfectly before the resurrection which agreeth not to that eternal generation of the Son out of the Essence of the Father nor to any cause for which Christ may be called the most high God Now tha the â—atter may the more clearly appear let us see what the adver aries answer to these places It is therefore wont to be answered unto both places that the Apostle hath no other meaning than that it was declared by the resurrection of Christ that he was the natâ—ral Son of God thaâ— is begotten out of the very Essence of God and that this is the meaning of the word determined which is in the latter place Some further add that †In the former place the word rise doth not signifie the Resurrection oâ— Christ from the dead but his exhibition in the flesh because the Apostle doth in the following verse namely 34. begin to confirm his Resurre tion Others acknowledge that the Resurrection of Christ from the deâ—d is signified by that word â—ut they say that in Greek this participle is an Aorist which hath the signification of the preteâ—perfect tense and is all one as if the Apostle had said afteâ— he had raised up Jesus So that the Apostle doth not affirm that the expression of the Psalm wherein it is spoken of Christs generation from God was fulfilled in his very resurrection but after it namely when he was exalted and made a King by God But that answer which is alleaged concerning the declaration of this namely that Christ is the Son of God is of no moment For as to the first place from whence a judgement may and ought to be made of the latter the word begotten cannot be understood of the declaration of a generation out of the Essence of God already made from eternity For to omit that by this meanes that nice observation falls to the ground which very many of the adversaries fasten upon those word to day namely that the eâ—ernity of God is thereby signified wherein there is nothing past or future but present only in as much as it cannot be said that God did from all eternity declare that Christ was begotten out of his Essencce to omit I say this nicety there are other things which overthrow that interpretation For in the first place what is this to the fulfilling of he Promise made to the Fathers which God hath actually performed to their Children They with whom we dispute confess and the thing it self sheweth that the promise of giving the Messias is here understood But how is it pertinent hereunto that God hath declared that Christ is such a Son as was eternally begotten out of his Essence for God could declare it many other wayes were the thing otherwise true than by giving or making of Jesus a King as they with whom we dispute affirm he hath declared but by this way he could in no wise declare the same for that God hath made Jesus King is so far from arguing that he was eternally begotten out of the Essence of God and consequently the most high God that the clean contrary is rather â—vinced from it as we have before shewn Chap 18. For if you say that â—e made himself King in the first place Paul doth not here urge that in as much as he manifestly attributeth not to Christ himself but to the Father both his Resurrection and consequently as they will have it the declaration of his generation out of the Essence of God But the other not this should have been urged by the Apostle would he have intimated that Christ was declared to be the Son of God begotten out of his Essence by raising up himself from the dead Again although Christ had raised up himself yet from the raising it self whether you understand it of Christs nativity or of his resurrection from the dead it would not have appeared whereas it ought to have appeared if the raising of Christ ought to declare that Jesus was begotten out of the Essence of God because he raised himself Now that it did not appear is evident enough for into whose mind would it come either that he who is born is the author of his own nativity or that he who riseth from the dead is the author of his own resurrection inasmuch as he who is born had no being befoâ—e and he that riseth had by death lost his being and is as to the strength
and without reason yea contrary to the word ordained or appointed and finally to the resurrection from the dead from which or by which that might have come to pass It is manifest therefore that there is no other more sublime cause for which Jesus may be called the Son of God but this that being raised from the dead he was made by God both Lord and Christ or the heavenly and eternal King of his people Moreover the same thing is plainly seen from the second Psalm a place that we have explained already For all as I know confess that when God speaketh thus unto Christ thou art my Son the name of the Son of God is taken in the most excellent manner But we have seen that this is the cause why he is in that place called the Son of God because he being raised from the dead was not only made immortal but also the King of Gods people and besides the Priest and Prince of our Salvation as we have shewn partly from the very Psalm and partly from Acts 13. and Heb. 5. Whereto may be added Heb. 1.4 5. For when the divine Author had there said that Christ having purged away our sins by himself was set at the right hand of God on high he adds Being made so much better or rather more honourable than the Angels as he had inherited a more different that is a better and more excellent name than they For to which of the Angels said he at any time thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee And again I will be to him a Father and he shall be to me a Son From which place it is understood that the name of the Son of God is not Essential unto Christ whilst he is said to have inherited it nor that it is the name of the most high God for as much as by his exaltation he obtained a dignity and excellency equal to that name and title which doth not happen to the most high God Besides the thing it self shews that Christ is here spoken of according to his humane nature as they say and also that this is such a name as agrees to Christ according to that nature Unto which also the following passage accords I will be unto him a Father and he shall be to me a Son wherein the same sence is expressed For these words do in like manner argue that it is not spoken of such a thing as is proper to the most high God and was in being from all eternity For both the words do openly respect something future and in the first and literal sense as they say were spoken most clearly of Solomon the type of Christ in that respect as others also confess Compare 2 Sam. 7.14 with the words both foregoing and following and 1 Chron. 22.10 and 26.6 compare also 1 King 5.5.8.19 It is therefore necessary that there should be such a similitude and analogie between the reason whereby Christ is the Son of God that whereby Solomon was the Son of God inasmuch as this is a certain representation of that but how was that whereby Solomon was the Son of God a certain representation of this whereby Christ is the Son of God if Jesus be therefore the Son of God because he was begotten of the Fathers Essence from eternity and so the same God with the Father But if Jesus be the Son of God by reason of most high love and the benefits flowing from the same which God bestowed upon him amongst which the heavenly Kingdom and Empire that was granted unto him holdeth the principal place Solomon is rightly constituted the type of Christ and the woâ—ds uttered of him in the litteral sense are rightly and elegantly referred unto him in a mystical and far stricter sense It is evident therefore that neither in the words of the second Psalm there cited is any thing contained of the eternal generation of Christ out of the Fathers Essence Finally who doubteth when Peter had confessed that Jesus was the Son of God or when we are commanded to believe and confess the same thing of him if we would be accounted Christians and be saved that the name of the Son of God is taken in the most perfect signification wherein it agrees unto Christ But we saw then that it doth in very deed signify no otherwise than that Jesus is Christ or a King appointed of God and set over his people to defend and preserve them for ever wherefore it is to be concluded that this is the principal reason for which he is called the Son of God neither can any better be found But since that doth not constitute Christ the most high God but rather shews that he is not the most high God it follows that there is no other cause of his Son-ship as they say which can make Christ the most high God We have spoken somewhat largly of the first reason which shews that Christ is not the most high God therefore because he is the Son of God partly because if we rightly observe there are more arguments of our opinion contained in it and partly because this that Christ is the Son of God is commonly believed to contain the strongest argument of the contrary opinion Wherefore it is to be shewn in a few woâ—ds how exceedingly men commonly err and the true opinion be proved from the reason whereby Christ is the Son of God There follows now another proof of the principal Arguments Assumption which we will dispatch very briefly namely 2 Proof of the principal Arguments Assumption that it is very clear from the holy Scripâ—ure that Christ died for us according to that nature according to which he was the Son of God and indeed only begotten and proper But if â—e were in that manner the Son of God as he was begotten of the Essence of God and so was the most high God he could not have died according to that nature according to which he is the Son of God For the most high God as such cannot die yea cannot in any respect whatsoever But that which we have already spoken of Christ is from thence manifest that the greatest love of God towards us is in the holy Scriptures shewn from this that he delivered his only begotten or his own Son unto death for us See John 3.16 compared with vers 14. and Rom 8.32 1 John 4.10 compared with vers 9. aforegoing add also Rom. 5.10 compared with vers 8. But if Christ died not according to that nature according to which he was the Son of God but according to another nature which was added to the person of the only begotten Son of God it can neither be truly said of the proper and only begotten Son of God that he died or was given for us neither can the greatest love of God towards us be from thence collected For what so great wonder is it for some accession of the only begotten Son of God or some nature that was added
will not now rehearse that that Christ's Sanctification cannot be rather attributed to the holy Spirit than to the Father to whom the same is so ascribed * John 10.36 that it is urged as a cause why Christ is his Son For hence it would follow if the the same agree rather to the holy Spirit than to the Father that the holy Spirit would be rather the Father of Christ than God himself who both is the Father of Christ and is every where in the new Testament so called That we will say here which is proper to this place if any reason can be imagined why that which is common to all the Persons should notwithstanding be ascribed rather to one than to another that here would be great cause why this action is rather to be ascribed to the Son than to any other Person and indeed a double cause The one is that most strict conjunction which agreeth unto the Son according to his humane Nature as the Adversaries Opinion urges The other is that the same Adversaries will have the Son to be the natural Wisdom and Power of God by which he makes all things and hither they bring those words which in Prov. 8. are spoken abstractively and in general touching Wisdom and also those which we read of Christ 1 Cor. 1.24 But unto which divine Person would it rather agree to bestow on the humane Nature of Christ Wisdom Understanding Counsel Knowledge than to that which was nearest unto that Nature and is the natural Wisdom of God himself To what would it better agree than to the natural Vertue and Power of God to do all those stupendious works by the humane Nature All those things therefore are rather to be attributed to the divine Nature of Christ than to the holy Spirit Besides we demand of them that make use of this kind of exception whether or no they determine that the holy Spirit contributed more to the bestowing of those Gifts upon the humane Nature than the divine Person of Christ himself or as much the one as the other Person If that they overthrow their own Opinion if this the Scripture For if they admit that either there was not so much power in the divine Person of Christ to perform the same as was in the holy Spirit or not so great a will Neither can be spoken of it if Christ were the most high God and indeed of the same Essence with the holy Spirit But if they admit this there will be no evident cause why it should be expresly attributed to the holy Spirit that he bestowed those Gifts on the man Christ and no where to the divine Person or Nature of Christ himself Wherefore this exception hath there no place and consequently neither the distinction of a humane and divine Nature in Christ For this very thing we demand why was the holy Spirit given to the humane Nature if that were personally united to the divine Nature CHAP. XXXIV Arg. 34 Christ was tempted of the Devil The four and thirtieth Argument That Christ was tempted of the Devil THe fourth Argument of this kind is this that Christ as the History of the Gospel declareth was tempted of the * Mat. 4.1 c. Mark 1.12 Luke 4.1 c. Devil and sollicited to worship him and that he was to this very end namely that he might be tempted of the Devil led by the holy Spirit into the wilderness For this would by no means have hapned if Christ had been the most high God For first what is more unworthy of God than to expose himself to this impious and wicked Enemy whom for the contempt of his Majesty most clearly heretofore seen he had thrust out of Heaven to be tempted and sollicited to the adoration of him and so to offer himself of his own accord to be mocked of the Devil Again to what purpose should Christ do this was it that it might appear that the most high God was able to endure and overcome the temptations of the Devil was there any one who could make any doubt thereof so that there should need any tryal thereof Furthermore how durst the Devil attempt so great a matter I will not now mention that the Devils tremble at the sight of the divine Majesty †Jam. 2.19 inasmuch as they are afraid at the memory of him in that they were by him cast out of Heaven and thrust down to Hell For feign you now in the wicked spirit who is very conscious both of the Wrath and invincible Power of God and of the bonds wherein he is held by him as much boldness and impudency as you please yet must you withal confess that he is exceeding cunning and I would this were not to be confest But how can it be that a most cunning spirit should tempt the most high God and endeavour to seduce him and conceive in his mind such a project as that he should sollicite him to a thing most unworthy and detestable namely the adoration of the Devil For can it be either that he should attempt a thing which he well knoweth to be impossible or should not clearly perceive that this thing is altogether impossible Neither of these things are incident to him that hath so much as a grain of wit much less could it happen to a most subtil and cunning spirit Moreover when he saith If thou art the Son of God command that these stones become loaves And again If thou art the Son of God cast thy self down He sufficiently sheweth that his intention is to make Christ by some means to begin to doubt whether he be indeed the Son of God whom he had a little before * Mat. 3. â—1 heard from Heaven that he was and consequently to seek further proofs of a thing some way doubtful But how could he hope by any means whatsoever to effect this with such a Son of God as was begotten out of the divine Essence For do we think that an enemy most practised in this kind of fighting who is commonly called the Author of a thousand cunning tricks did here use such a kind of tempting as was the unfittest of all to deceive and so made use of arms so vain and ridiculous to assail a most valiant and wise Captain What would Satan get if by any reasons he should endeavour to perswade even a common man who is well in his wits to doubt of himself whether he was a man and not rather something inferiour to a man Would not this rather be a sport than a temptation But it would be much more ridiculous by any reason whatsoever to go about to perswade the Son of God begotten out of the divine Essence that he should doubt whether he be the Son of God or not But you will understand that thing is far otherwise if you observe that Christ was pronounced by God to be his Son in such a manner as did not belong to his Essence and which was indeed
been to be named whom the Adversaries hold to have descended from heaven into the Virgins womb and there to have assumed humane flesh But we have already shewed and it is laid down in this exception which we now refute that the son was not named in the words of the Angel as the Author of his conception Lastly such an opinion should require that that Power of which in the words of the Angel there is mention should be called the power of the holy spirit or by the name of the Most High whose power he is said to be should be understood the holy spirit But any one sees the former was not done The latter is hereby refelled because both by the following words and also by comparing with the 32d verse it sufficiently appears that by the words The Most High the Father of Jesus Christ is understood Wherefore this is another place from whence it is proved that the holy spirit is the divine power or efficacy The third place is extant in Paul 1 Cor. 2.4 5. where he saith And my speech and my preaching was not in the enticing words of mans wisdom but in demonstration of the spirit and of power that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men but in the Power of God Where you see the Apostle instead of that which he had before expressed in two words spirit and power afterwards puts only the power of God To which are to be added also those words of Peter in Acts 10.38 of Christ how God anointed him with the holy Ghost and with Power and those of the Angel in Luke 1.17 of John Baptist And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias For the same thing in very deed is designed by the name of spirit or holy spirit and power Neither is it of moment that some where the power of the holy spirit is mentioned For both of power and efficacy there may be again other power and efficacy depending on that former And furthermore it is to be observed that the Genitive Case of the holy spirit may with good right be taken for the Genitive of the species After which manner both the gift of the holy spirit is taken for that gift which is the holy spirit Acts 2.38 10 45 comp chap 11.15 16 17. and the earnest of the spirit for the earnest which is the holy spirit 2 Cor. 1.22 and 5 5. as both of it self it is easily understood as also by comparing with the words Ephes 1.14 is perceived So also the promise of the holy spirit Acts 2.33 is taken for the thing promised which is the holy spirit But there is no need of more examples when frequently enough the Genitive Case put after another Noun signifies its certain species as it is observed by learned men To the places hitherto brought the words Ephes 3.7 20. may be added in which if in the place of divine power you put the holy spirit you will see that there indeed will be no difference of the sence as also on the contrary where mention is made of the holy spirit if you put power or divine efficacy or divine inspiration there will arise no diversity of meaning although there where the name of Power as a genus is put before it the manner of speaking is to be somewhat changed or where that is added for explication sake it is not any more afterwards to be repeated Those words also of Christ in Luke chap 11.20 may be added in which he affirms that by the Finger of God he cast out Devils Where it is easily to be seen that by the name of Finger the power and efficacy of God is understood as it also happens elsewhere * Psal 8.4 compared with Exod 8.19 in the holy Scripture in which manner also the hand of God is taken For therefore that by which God performs his Works that is his Power or Efficacy is termed Hand or Finger because we are wont to effect our works with hands and fingers as others have long since observed But Christ expressing the same thing in Maâ— 12 28. saith that he cast out Devils in the spirit of God so that the Finger of God or the Power and Efficacy is the same with the Spirit of God Lastly That the holy Spirit is the Power or Efficacy of God thence appeareth because both propâ—ecies and other admirable gifts and works which come from that Power and Efficacy which we are wont to call the divine Inspiration are all ascribed to the holy Spirit as to the next cause and inwardly working in men and that not because it is revealed by God that the holy Spirit doth effect them but because it is from the thing it self manifest enough if it appeare that they are performed by a divine Power See Luke 1.41 67. and 2.26 27. Acts 4.8 31. 6.10 55. 9.31 10.44 45 47. 11.15 16 24 28. 13.2 4 9 52. 15.8 28. 16.6 7.20.23 28. 21.4 11. and that I may pass by many more places of holy Scripture 1 Cor. 12.4 7 c. 2 Pet. 1.3 ult Whence also when the divine Writers would signifie any one to be divinely inspired and filled with divine power they say that he is filled with the holy Spirit or using some like manner of speaking affirm him to be endued with a divine Spirit But if the holy Spirit were not the very Power and Efficacy of God but a person distinct from the Father and Son there would be no cause why all those things should be ascribed to the holy Spirit as the next cause and inwardly working in men For as much as it might come to pass that the Father and the son by their Efficacy might effect all those things the person of the holy spirit not intervening as a middle cause Certainly although it should be manifest that prophesie or any other gift comes from God nevertheless it could not appear without manifest divine revelation that the holy spirit did intervene as a middle and next cause to perform that thing But the holy scriptures do so speak of that thing that they plainly enough shew that it is manifest by the thing it self without other peculiar revelation Neither indeed Paul when writing to the Corinthians he said * 1 Cor. 2.1 his words were in demonstration of spirit to wit divine or among other things commended himself as the servant of God †2 Cor. 6.4 in the holy Spirit would at length be understood by his words that he was endued with the holy Spirit and that from it his words or deeds came but from the thing it self But if you say that therefore al those things are ascribed to the holy Spirit and that thing was manifest to all believers because the holy spirit is God himself from whom no man is ignorant all those things come he besides that he shall take as granted the thing here controverted and unknown to those men to
all works to without as they speak to be common to the whole Trinity yet affirm that Creation agrees more properly to the Father Redemption to the Son Sanctification to the holy Spirit Lastly Paul also Rom. 1.4 as in like manner we have seen above saith Christ was constituted the Son of God in power according to the spirit of sanctification by the resurrection of the dead making the spirit of sanctification the proper and next cause of that filiation But if he be a person or comes from the person of the holy spirit the holy spirit will be the Father of Christ From which absurdity our opinion is far remote which makes not the holy spirit a person but the power and efficacy of God which however it concurred to the generation of the Son yet it concurred not as a Father but as that by which the Father begat But if the holy spirit be not a person neither is he the most high God as who is of necessity a person and indeed of this thing is here the question between us and the adversaries Whether the holy spirit be a divine person namely distinct from the Father Therefore let this be the third Argument of this rank CHAP. VIII The eighth Argument That the holy Spirit is given by God to men THe fourth Argument drawn from those things which are openly delivered in the holy Scripture concerning the holy Spirit shall be this That the holy Spirit is given to men by God and that men obtain receive and have him from God by prayers as numberless places of the holy Scriptures shew out of which it is sufficient to have looked into but these few Luke 11.13 John 7.39 and 14.16 17. Acts 5.32 and 15.8 Rom. 5.5 1 Cor. 6.19 Whence also the holy Spirit is teâ—med a Gift Acts 11.17 which compare with the precedent Yea in all those places wâ—ere mention is made of the gift of the holy Spirit For we shewed above Chap. 6. of this Section That there is not there the Genitive Case of the Efficient but of the Species otherwise both the gifts rather than the gift of the holy Spirit had been to be mentioned and by it had not â—een signified that men either have received or were to receive the holy Spirit which notwithstanding the holy Scriptures using that manner of speech would altogether shew but only some effect of it Now by these things it is evinced that the holy Spirit is not the most high God for he is given or bestowed by none upon any is obtained of none by prayers For first Every Gift and whatsoever is obtained by prayer is in the power of the giver But the most high God is not in the power of another otherwise by this very thing he should have some one above himself and moreover should not be most high Besides Arg. 8 The holy Spirit is given to men the gift is made also his to whom it is given so as that it may be possessed by him But may the most high God be so a mortal mans as that he may be possessed by him Moreover to what end should so great a gift be given to men What fruit would there be of it No other certainly can be imagined but that those effects may exist in a man which the holy Scriptures testify to be produced by the holy Spirit What then Is it needful to the end God should fill any man with such effects and gifts that he himself be given to him When the Father filleth any man with such gifts is it necessary that he himself should be given to him Why then may not the holy Spirit be able to do the same which tâ—e Father if in like manner he be most high and so the same God With the Father Lastly What cause is there why the holy Spirit should be obtained by us from the Father or Son if he himself be the most high God Why is he not given by himself if so be he may be given A larger Confirmation and Defence of this Argument TO these things I see not what they can answer who doubt not to affirm neither indeed can they otherwise as it shall hereafter be made manifest that the very person of the holy Spirit is given to men together with his effects Therefore others endeavour to decline the blow that they affirm that not the holy Spirit properly so called is given to men by God but its effect or rather various effects such as are those which 1 Cor. 12.8 c. are largly enough rehearsed and others common to all believers For these are by a Metonymie signified by the name of the holy spirit when he is said to be given unto men and so to be received and had of them For the efficient cause is put for the effect Although some who say there is a Metalepsis in the phrase seem to take the thing a little otherwise For neither do they seem to take the name of the holy Spirit it self for his effects or gifts but for that very divine person which they hold Nevertheless in the mean while they signifie that the giving passively taken is attributed to him only improperly because that which may properly agree to the effects may be also improperly attributed to the efficient cause it self seeing the effects of the holy Spirit may be properly given not he himself And indeed both these seem to themselves to deal more warily than those who simply confess that the holy Spirit himself is given yet in the mean time they do not perceive that both this hole by which they endeavour to get out is stopt and likewise although I should somewhat enlarge it to them yet are they no whit less held fast bound For first it is false that the effects only of the holy Spirit not the holy Spirit himself is given to men And further that when he is said to be given or received by us or had it is said but by a Metonymie or Metalepsis Besides although it was granted it must be no whit the less confessed that the holy Spirit is not the most high God As to the former we shall demonstrate it first by certain general reason and common to all those places of which we treat then by other more special and proper to certain places and lastly from certain hypotheses of the Adâ—ersaries As to the general reason If by the name of the holy Spirit in these places of which we treat is understood some divine and holy inspiration or some power flowing from God which is as it were breathed into men the holy Spirit is properly given that is not by a Metonymie only or by a Metalepsis is said to be given unto men to be received and had of them That the thing is so will be afterward understood For we shall first shew that such an inspiration is understood by the name of the holy spirit when he is said to be given to us to be received and had by us although
be breathed then to this divine inspiration of which we treat since that comes not forth without God this proceeds from God and is inspired into men It is manifest therefore that that divine inspiration is properly termed the holy spirit not metonimycally only As to the latter I scarse believe the adversaries will deny that that very inspiration is properly given For how is that which is breathed and put into the hearts of men to their greatest profit not properly given them Therefore there is no Metalepsis here to be sought by which it may come to pass that that which properly agrees only to the effect may improperly be attributed to the efficient cause since here the very efficient cause of those effects which are understood that is the very divine inspiration is by it self given to men And let these things suffice concerning the general reason and common to all the places which we treat of As for the special Reasons more proper to certain places those words of Christ which we have before cited out of John 14.16 17. deserve to be first mentioned I will ask the Father and he shall give you another Advocate that he may abide with you for ever even the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receive because it seeth him not nor knoweth him But ye know him for he dwelleth with you to wit as inhabiting in Christ he did as it were converse among the Disciples and shall be in you that is and further shall be not only with you or among you as now but also in your selves being given of the Father unto you What could be said more clearly to shew that the holy Spirit properly so called is given of God that it is a gift which may be obtained of the Father by faithful prayers For what Is not the comforter that holy Spirit properly so called or is it not but by a Metalepsis said to be given to the Disciples by the Father The former the Adversaries cannot say unless they will deny that the third person of the Deity is the holy Spirit properly so called which yet they chiefly will have For that the same is understood by the Comforter they altogether contend and urge both the name it self of Paraclet or Comforter as also the word another added to it and the actions proper to persons attributed to him in this speech of Christ of which below we will somewhat treat This may of right be said that if it be not there spoken of the holy Spirit properly so called it is no where spoken of him It remains therefore that they say that it is indeed here spoken of the third person of the Deity and that this person 〈◊〉 meant by the Paraclâ—r but that he is not said to be given to the Apostles by the Father but by a Metalepsis namely because its effects or various gifts are to be given to them But neither hath that shift here any place For by comparing of that place with the words in verse 26. of the same chapter and also with the words verse 26. of the following chapter it will easily appear to any one that Christ so far asserts that the Father being asked of him was about to give the holy Spirit to the Disciples as he â—â—ould send him in the name of Christ or Christ himself should send him unto the Disciples from the Father For so he saith in that former place But the Comforter the holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name he shall teach you all things c. But in the latter But when the Comforter is come whom I will send to you from the Father the Spirit of Truth which proceedeth from the Father he shall testifie of me And truly what other thing could either the Father of the Son do pertaining to that giving than that he should send the holy Spirit to the Disciples with that intent that he might remain in them for ever and produce those divine effects which afterwards appeared in them But that sending and the coming of the holy Spirit which follows it doth not agree first to the effects of the holy Spirit and only consequently to him which should be if it were attributed to him only by a Metalepsis but on the contrary Whence the Adversaries are wont to prove the person of the holy Spirit by that mission which they could not do if they did judge it primarily and of it self to agree to the gifts of the holy Spirit For as much as such a mission if it be in no sort proper to a person cannot also prove it But if then that mission primarily and of it self agree to the holy Spirit not to his effects there will be the same reason of the giving also which we have seen to consist in that sending But hence ariseth also another reason of the same thing For that the holy Spirit should teach the Disciples all things and recal all Christs sayings into their remembrance is put chap 14.26 as the consequent of the sending of the holy Spirit and moreover also of the giving it But if so far only the holy Spirit should be given as its gifts are bestowed that thing should be contained in the giving it self of the holy Spirit but not be a consequent of it For that imparting of the knowledge of divine things even first of all pertains to the producing of gifts coming from the holy Spirit upon the Apostles This place might have enough warned the Adversaries that they should not date to deny the holy Spirit properly so called to be given to us together with his effects But there want not also other places which do the same For by other Adversaries who therefore use not such an answer hath that place of Paul Rom. 5.5 been taken notice of where he saith The Love of God that is the sence of the divine Love is shed abroad in our hearts by the holy Spirit which is given to us Where indeed it is said concerning that Spirit which diffuseth the sence of divine Love in our hearts and so is the Author of the spiritual gift that he is given to us To which place may be added that of the same Epistle chap. 18 1â— where the Apostle saith Ye have received the Spirit of adoption whereby that is by whose force and impulse we cry Abba Father for the Spirit it self beareth witness to our spirit that we are the Children of God Of which also in the Epistle to the Galathians chap. 4.6 he saith God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts crying Abba Father So also 2 Tim. 1.7 it is said For God hath not given to us the spirit of fear but of Power of Love and of a sound mind For what else is it than that God hath not given to us such a Spirit as should effect fear and cowardise in us but such as begets in us strength and fortitude charity and prudence or sobriety But I remember not that I have hitherto
out the character and mark stamped on us by God But the Apostle had not expressed that if he had only said that we are sealed by the holy Spirit unless perhaps any one should take such words in such a sence in which we would have them said to wit that it may be understood that we have been sealed with the divine Spirit or that the holy Spirit is as it were a sign mark and character impressed on us by which God hath marked us as his proper goods and hath made us sacred and inviolable and safe from all danger of perishing if we do our duty The same thing the Apostle hath shewed 2 Cor. 1.22 especially if one compare the place with those two which we have cited out of the Epistle to the Ephesians and chiefly with the former For in both places the same thing is explained nor do the words much differ For there indeed after the Apostle had said ver 21. Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ Greek into Christ and hath anointed us is God He adds ver 22. who hath also sealed us and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts But here he saith In whom that is by whom to wit Christ also after that ye believed ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise that is the holy Spirit promised which is the Pledge or Earnest of our inheritance unto the day of redemption c. namely the latter clause is added for explication of the former and what is the earnest of our inheritance the same is also the seal with which we are marked Hence then it again appears that the holy Spirit is neither the most high God nor a person For neither is any thing sealed with a person but with some thing nor is any thing more absurd than to say that the most high God whose propriety we are and who hath sealed us unto the day of redemption is the seal it self wherewith we are sealed By these things also it appears that the Adversaries labour in vain who endeavour out of the words Ephes 4.30 to deduct the person of the holy Spirit because he is said to be grieved and vexed by us as if the like things were not attributed to Charity which is said to rejoyce in the Truth and on the contrary not to rejoyce which is all one as to be grieved with Iniquity and as if it were not more easie to find here a seigning of a person than to shew that to some person and he indeed the most high God it agrees to be a seal imprinted on men Certainly they who else where * Ro. 8.26 The Defence will they nill they are forced to acknowledge that groans are improperly attributed to the holy Spirit have no cause why they will not have grieving figuratively to be ascribed to it especially when neither themselves can properly asscribe grieving to it seeing that doth not proper befal God But if they say that that also is improperly and by a Metaphor said of the holy Spirit that we are sealed by it we answer Although the thing expressed by that metaphorical kind of speaking be conceived in proper words yet nevertheless the force of our Argument would be the same For it is signified as was said that the holy Spirit is a certain thing given unto us by God by which we may be certified of our future redemption and the happiness promised us Besides although that manner of speaking be metaphoricall yet it is not such as is fitted to a person For neither is every Metaphor accommodated to every thing Let there be brought forth but one place either out of profane or sacred Writers where some one is said to be sealed with any person Wherefore if the holy Spirit were a person Paul would have used such a Metaphor as might have been fitted to a person and had not less expressed the thing which he here handled than the word of sealing He had said to wit that the holy Spirit was a surety or undertaker or hostage or had been content with the name of earnest or pledge which last word is sometime by a Metaphor accommodated to persons But it is altogether unheard of that any person who is given to another to certifie him of his salvation and safety is compared to a seal imprinted on him who is secured or any one said to be sealed by him Neither indeed in the places alleaged doth any thing go before which gave occasion to the Apostle for so bold yea absurd a kind of metaphor rather then for another a like fitted to his purpose and more to the person But unusual metaphors and figures are not wont to be used by considerate and grave men unless special occasion invites them and leads them thereto much less that they speak so absurdly without any necessity The same we would have also said unto them who say these things are pronounced of the holy Spirit by a Metonimy or Metalepsis to wit in respect of the gifts which come from hint For there are also other Metalepsis in some manner accommodated to persons or at least more in use But unusual ones are not to be ascribed to considerate men unless it appears that they are led to them by some certain occasion Although the same Adversaries also are bound to excuse a Metaphor which would nothing less concur with a Metalepsis In the third place those places of holy Scripture deserve to be mentioned in which the holy Spirit is said to be poured out on men such as are these Isa 44.3 Joel 2.28 29. which place is cited by Peter Acts â— 18 19. Zach. 12.10 Tit. 3.6 to which also those are to be joyned in which men are said to be baptized in or with it and its baptism is opposed to the baptism of water used by John as it is Mat. 3.11 and the places in the other Evangelists answering to it and likewise John 1.33 Acts 1.5 11 16. add 1 Cor. 12.13 although there to be baptized in one spirit is taken by some for to be baptized by one Spirit so we might say we are baptized by Christ by whom God hath poured out abundantly the holy Spirit upon us Tit. 3.6 when nevertheless otherwise where ever that phrase To be baptized in spirit is extant it signifies nothing else as all confess than to be baptized with the spirit the particle in among the Greeks being redundant which hath flowed from an Hebraism For because that which the Greeks express by the simple Dative case the Latins by the Ablative the Hebrews cannot express without the Particle prefixed which is for the most part Be that is In therefore it is often retained by the he braising Greek Writers and prefixed to the dative which alone would have that force But that those words in the holy Spirit are elsewhere so to be understood easily appears by the opposite member For in most places in which it is said that John baptized with water it is
he in that speech of his in which several times he brings in the holy Spirit as a person spake to the Disciples in Parables or Figures fetcht from common use but that sometimes he would openly and plainly declare to them of the Father or of the things pertaining to the Father Chap. 16.25 But among those things even chiefly is the holy Spirit of whom there is often mention in that discourse one while more openly another while more covertly Christ afterwards indeed explained the thing clearly enough when he poured out the holy Spirit on the Disciples by which he lead them into all the Truth For it not as a true person hath declared any thing to them but as a divine inspiration inspired into their minds hath wrought and imprinted in them the fullest knowledge of the Doctrine of Christ Wherefore since the event it self hath sufficiently explained that Discourse why do we seek another Interpretation CHAP. XIV Arg. 14 from 1 Cor. 2.10 Three Arguments from 1 Cor. 2.10 c. The Spirit searcheth all things even the deep things of God c. THe fourth place in this rank we shall assigne to those words of Paul 1 Cor. 2. which the Adversaries are wont to use to prove that the holy Spirit is a divine person For thus the Apostle there speaks But God hath revealed them to us to wit those things which God hath prepared for them who love him by his Spirit For the Spirit searcheth all things even the deep things of God For who of men knoweth the things of man save the spirit of man that is in him Even so the things of God knoweth none but the Spirit of God Now we have received not the Spirit of this world but the spirit which is of God c. This place yeelds us divers Arguments some of which are above alleaged by us in Sect. 3. Chap. 5. First That the holy â—pirit is distinguished from God whilest God is said by him to reveal to us the things of salvation whilest it is called the Spirit of God whilest it is asserted that he searcheth the deep things of God and hath known the things which are of God whilest in the end Chap. 8. Chap. 11. it is said to be of God Moreover that men are said to receive it Lastly that when he is said to be of God he is made the effect of God But none of these we have shewed can befal the most high God But besides these three as many other Arguments may be fetcht from the same words The first is That God is said to have revealed something to us by his Spirit For thence it is manifest that it is not the first but the middle cause of that Revelation which agrees not to the most high God See what we have said in those places above Sect. 2. Chap. 19. in which God is said to have done either all or certain things by Christ The second is That it is said to search even the deep things of God For neither is any one said to search those things the most clear and perfect knowledge of which is first in him and which are by him first constituted and decreed But if the holy Spirit is the most high God the deep things of God that is his hidden counsels and most clear and perfect knowledge thereof in him is first resident and by him they are all first constituted and decreed How then could he be said to search them God and Christ indeed is said to search our hearts because he penetrates into the secrets of anothers breast but his own counsels his own deep things he is no where said to search Indeed neither are men said to search their own counsels unless perhaps when either they are by some means slipt out of their memory or they themselves have not yet sufficiently examined the reason of them But what can be wanting to the most high God for the most exact knowledge of his depths Arg. 11 From 1 Cor. 2.10 The Apostle in this place being about to declare that which he had said of the Spirit of God by the example of the Spirit of man doth not say that it searcheth but knows the things which are of a man although the manner of speaking which he had used of the Spirit of God would lead him thereto that he should affirm that the spirit of man also searcheth those things which are of a man But he would not affirm it of the Spirit of man because in it first are resident those things which are of a man that is his counsels and decrees and by it are constituted Therefore the same reason should be of the holy Spirit if he were the most high God We know indeed that it is said by a Metalepsis which also brings forth a certain Prosopopey that the Spirit of God searcheth all things namely because it causeth men in whom it is to find out all things even the deep and hidden counsels of God In which manner the same Spirit is said to intercede for us with unutterable groans and to cry Abba Father because it is the cause that we may do these things But the Adversaries cannot use this answer who endeavour to frame the person of the holy Spirit from this that the holy Spirit is said to know all things even those which are of God which they could not do if they would acknowledge those things to be said of the holy Spirit by a Metalepsis For it would no more thence follow that the holy Spirit is a person than that Charity is a person because so many actions proper to persons are attributed to it by a Metalepsis afterward in the same Epistle 1 Cor. 13. Moreover such a Metalepsis would be altogether unusual if the holy Spirit should be the most high God Who would say that the Father searcheth the counsel of God because he may cause another to search them Why then should the holy Spirit be said to search the deep things of God if he himself were the most high God whose are those deep things We say the same words of Paul Rom. 8.27 which we touched a little before The Spirit it self askes or makes intercession for us with unutterable groans and he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit because he maketh intercession for the Saints according to God For how could these things be said even by a Metalepsis of the holy Spirit if he were the most high God with whom the intercession is made and who searcheth the hearts and according to whom or according to whose will the Saints intercede For it is not convenient that not only humane action should be attributed to the most high God but that his own person also should be detracted from him The third Argument which may be drawn from the aforesaid place to the Corinthians is that if the holy Spirit were a person distinct from the Father and Son which speaking pâ—opeâ—ly should be said
the conception of him in the womb of the Virgin unless any say that the Virgin was farther extended not only than her garment or house but all heavens likewise also his ascent into heaven and return from it so necessary as they call them Articles of Christian Religion and Faith which whilst they defend who also hold the ubiquity of the body of Christ they contradict themselves and assert neither of them fully and constantly This is a grievous error both of it self and if you mark it because it overthrows the foundations of all Christian knowledge and faith For it denies credit to be given to the senses and will not that any more credit â—e given to the eyes nor hands by which Christ overcame of old the most stiff incredulity as * Luke 24.39 c. of other disciples so †John 20.27 28. of Thomas For it requires to be believed that Christ was in very deed in that place already before he came into which he was seen by their eyes to have come and that nevertheless he remained in his very body in that place from which he was seen to have departed and that now also those places are full of the body of Christ consisting of flesh blood and bones which not only the eyes but also the hands do testifie to be empty of it and to be filled with other bodies But if Faith be to be denied to these witnesses there will be no cause why Christ should not be discredited * John 3.11 32. testifying those things which he hath seen there will be no reason why we should believe the Apostles affirming Christs Miracles Death Resurrection which they perceived †Joh. 20.30 31. 1 Cor. 15.5 c. by their outward sences and those holy Writers who affirm that they ‖ Luke 1.2 rest themselves on the credit of eye witnesses In vain did John write * 1 John 1.1 What we have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have beheld and our hands have handled of the word of Life if both the eyes and the hands may be deceived in so manifest a thing yea we must also doubt whether we read those things in the holy Scriptures which we do read But I will say no more of this error as being not common to all the Adversaries Although in the mean while also a greater part of them affirmes the like things concerning the presence of the substance of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist against the credit of the senses themselves And lastly none of them can satisfie thoroughly the patrons of that ubiquity as long as they hold the humane nature of Christ to be joyned by an inseparable tie to the divine which wholly may subsist in its essence in all places For unless the humane nature be altogether in the same places in which the divine is the humane nature will at the same time be joyned and not joyned in place to the whole divinity But there is another errour both injurious to the greatest goodness of God towards us and also very hurtful to piety and consequently also to mens salvation which leans on that doctrine and is vulgarly common to all the Adversaries For if Christ be the most high God who dejected himself from the heavens into the Virgins womb who an infant cried in the cradle who eat drank wept and underwent as other things proper to humane frailty so also a grievous death there was to be sought some end agreeing to so absurd a thing that is equally absurd which hath put the most high God willing to save us on this necessity Now that is commonly held to be that the infinite God partly might make a full compensation for the disobedience of infinite numbers of men by the infinite merit of his obedience which they call active partly also by the infinite price of his death might most fully satisfie his Father angry with us for all our sins both past and present and to come and might fully discharge all our debts to him yea if those things which they say be true might also pay much more than we should owe since they say that even one drop of the blood of Christ as being infinite God hath satisfied for all the sins of the whole world Such a satisfaction seeing because it could be made by no creature and yet was necessary to appease the wrath of God therefore they say that God ought to be incarnated There are indeed some found who have rejected the former part of that satisfaction which consists in the active obedience of Christ as they call it For they saw that if Christ by his obedience had fully recompenced our disobedience there would remain no sins for which he should satisfie by his death all being already abundantly recompenced and extinct by that obedience But they are both few and nevertheless vehemently urge the latter satisfaction consisting in the passive obedience or Passion and Death More are found who also have endeavoured to mitigate somewhat the other part of that opinion either because they have taken away the necessity of it or because they have asserted that that satisfaction by its own virtue doth not extinguish our debts unless the bounty of God be added But besides that that opinion which we have before explained is more common it must needs be that that was a necessary and inevitable thing which compelled tâ—e most high God to that thing than which nothing can be imagined more unworthy of him and very many of them who deny the necessâ—ty of that satisfaction not depending on the Decree of God nevertheless do hold that price which was paid for us to be infinite in worth and equall to our debts But this opinion besides that it permits not to acknowledge the true virtue of Christs death in procuring us the remission of our sins and eternal Salvation it deprives God himâ—elf also of the praise of the greatest goodness which he hath afforded us sinners yea and takes away from him the right of further requiring piety from us by which very thing it both destroyes the study of piety in us and together with piety takes away salvation For God hath neither pardoned our sins to us if all that which was due to him was paid to him by another in our stead and name nor did he bestow his Son for us a price of our Redemption if it was paid him by the death of his Son Where then is that which the * Eph. 1.7 Apostle speaks of so much That we have Redemption in Christ by his blood even the Remission of sins according to the riches of the Divine Grace The holy Bible especially of the New Testament is †See among other places John 3.16 Rom. 3.5 6 c. 8.32 2 Cor. 5.18 c. Eph. 2.4 c. Col. 1.14 1 John 4.9 c. full of the praises of so great a bounty and immense love of God towards us But by what
repetition of that place out of John which we have formerly alleaged when we discoursed of the Prayers that Christ poured out to the Father chap. 14.16 I will pray the Father and he shall give you another Advocate And there is yet another place in the same John concerning the same thing afterwards chap. 15.26 But when the Advocate is come whom I will send unto you from the Father Whence you see that Christ not for himself as from the prime Fountain but from the Father would send and consequently did send the holy Spirit whom he also expresly saith doth proceed from the Father making the Father the prime Cause of him and himself the middle cause Concerning the same thing there is a notable place in the Acts which we have formerly cited chap. 2 33. where immediately after the first and most illustrious effusion of the holy Spirit upon the Disciples of Christ Peter speaketh thus Therefore being exalted by the right hand of God and having received the Promise of the holy Spirit from the Father be poured out that which you now see and hear Therefore as Christ himself elsewhere speaketh he actually received from the Father the holy Spirit that had been before promised to him and so poured him out upon the Apostles Which thing doth signifie no other than that the Father was the first Cause of that effusion and Christ the second wholly depending upon the Father therein Whereby likewise it may be understood why John chap. 7.39 said that the holy Spirit was not yet given because Christ was not yet ascended namely because he could not give the holy Spirit till he was exalted by the right hand of God and glorified Whence Christ also himself said chap. 16.7 I tell you the truth it is expedient for you that I go away namely to the Father and so be glorified for unless I go away the Advocate will not come unto you But if I go away I will send him unto you Now how far distant these things are from that Opinion which maketh Christ the most high God and so the first and highest Cause of all things and actions not only we have already shewn but every one may of himself easily perceive The distinction of Natures hath no more place here than in the former passages Arguments drawn from thence both because it would be necessary that the same things should be denyed of the same Christ for his divine Nature which are here simply affirmed of him for his humane Nature and also because these places likewise contain in them a tacit Negation and that a simple one namely that Christ did not those things of himself or was not the first cause of those works and finally because those operations are not agreeable to any thing but the Suppositum or Person of Christ as it is such and partly the places themselves manifestly intimate partly the Adversaries themselves confess that Christ is considered in them either as a Mediator and Embassadour of God or as a Priest or as a King And to sum up all in a word as a Saviour and consequently as a Person For that these Offices do primarily and by themselves agree to none but a Person both we have elsewhere taught and the Adversaries themselves confess but what followeth from thence is understood from the precedent Chapter CHAP. XX. The twentieth Argument from the words of Christ John 8.16 My Judgement is true because I am not alone but I and the Father that sent me VVE might from the places which we even now and formerly alleaged form many Arguments and consequently from every one of them that is somewhat clear a particular Argument But we care not much for the number but for the weight and evidence which doth of its own accord increase the number of Arguments For this matter which we handle is so fruitful for the evident truth of the Opinion which we defend that it seemeth that we ought to be more sollicitous in speaking out the measure than the plenty of Arguments Wherefore let these places that have last been alleaged and examined be accounted for the sixth Argument of this rank wherein we are now conversant is fetched out of the Testimonies of John and also of other sacred Writers and wherein something is affirmed of Christ which could not be affirmed of him if he were the most high God Of which kind there yet remaine other places in the same John which we will not prosecute The seventh Argument therefore we will fetch from those words of Christ which are extant John 8.16 If I judge my Judgment is true because I am not alone but I and my Father that sent me By which words Christ intimateth that if he were alone and the Father not with him it might be that he might err in judging or at least that he might deservedly be doubted concerning the truth of his judgment Wherefore now there was no cause of doubting because the Father was perpetually with him and so suffered him not to err in judgment But were Christ the most high God Arg. 20 from Joh. 8.16 his Judgment would have been no less true although he had been alone than it is now to be esteemed true because the Father is present with him For is not the judgment of one person who is the most high God accompted as true if he be by himself as if it be apparent that another person which likewise is the most high God is present with him Or were they with whom Christ spake so stupid as that if they had understood Christ to be the most high God they would presently have confessed that his Judgment was most true although they had heard or thought nothing concerning some other person which was present with him as in other things so also in judging The Defence of the Argument YOu will perhaps say that Christ fitted his speech to the Opinion of the Jews who believed him to be a mere man and therefore that he could not take for granted that he was the most high God but was forced to draw his Argument from a thing manifest unto them But this Answer is of no worth For first If Christ would have taken that only for granted which the Jews believed concerning him he neither ought nor could take that for granted which he here affirmeth of himself especially if the Opinion of the Adversaries be right For they did not yet believe that God was his Father which he here taketh for granted Nor did they yet believe that his Father namely God had sent him and so was also with him Again The Adversaries cannot use this Answer unless they will confess that Christ did not therefore call God his Father because he was so generated out of his Essence as that he was one God with him for if for this cause he had called God his Father he had already taken that for granted which this answer contend he could not take For what other thing would
it be to take for granted that God was his Father than that he also was the most high God But we manifestly see that Christ here supposeth that God was his Father Now if you reply that Christ doth indeed suppose this but implicitly and accutely so that the Jews did not understand it that will fall to the ground which our Adversaries are wont to say namely that for Christ to call God his Father and himself the Son of God was so manifest an Argument for the Generation of Christ out of the Essence of God that even the Jews themselves do understand it And thâ—s they will have to be the cause why they charged him with the crime of Blasphemy thereupon and would have stoned him and did at length crucifie him in that he called God his Father and himself the Son of God namely because they understood that he did by this means intimate that he was begotten out of the Essence of God and so hath one Essence with him For hither they are wont to draw those places in John chap. 5.17 18. and chap. 10.30 and chap. 19.7 and Mat. 26.63 c. Some other will perhaps say That Christ intended to say that very thing wich we deny namely that he was that one God with the Father For this was the cause why they affirmed that he was not alone but the Father was with him and consequently that he could not err in judging because the Father was joyned to him by unity of Essence But first he had spoken too obscurely if he would have comprehended so great a matter in those words For who is there if any one say I am not alone but I and the Father would understand his meaning to be that he is of one Essence with God For if you say that this is sufficiently hinted by the word Father it is to be noted that the force of Christ words or as they speak the middle term of the principal Argument consisteth not of the word Father but in this that the Father was present with Christ But that God or the Father should be with any one hath a far different meaning than to have one Essence with him For it signifieth according to the use of speaking very familiarly unto all but chiefly to the Jews that God is present with some one by his favour and assistance Wherefore the Jews by this means would not have perceived the mind of Christ and the force of the Argument Besides if there is so great force in the word Father why said Christ that his Father was with him As if some one might imagine that they whom he already understood to be of one Essence might be parted asunder and the one be left from the other Finally that description of the Father that he sent him namely Christ is repugnant to that Opinion partly because it is altogether unnecessary that there should be one Essence of him that sendeth another of him that is sent by him nor can he be the most high God who is sent by another but inferiour to him as hath formerly in its place been shewn partly because in this description of the Father the reason is plainly rendered why Christ was not alone but the Father was with him namely because Christ was the Embassadour of the Father and that an extraordinary one For God is alwayes by his favour and assistance present with all his Embassadours in all things which their office doth any way require and so much the more with Christ than with others in tâ—at Christ was a more excellent one than they But unless you will acknowledge tâ—is that description of the Father will make nothing to the present matter Whereas Christ is not wont to make use of idle descriptions and such as are notâ—ing to the purpose But that the Father sent Christ can no way be the cause that Christ should be of one Essence with the Father The distinction of two Natures in Christ if any one will here apply it is easily refuted by the same Reasons that we have used in the Defence of the precedent Arguments which accordingly a wise Reader changing as they say what is to be changed may of himself transfer itâ— er and apply to the matter in hand CHAP. XXI Arg. 21 from Joh. 8.14 Argument the one and twentieth from the words of Christ John 8.14 My Testimony is true because I know whence I am and whither I go IN the eighth place may be allâ—aged these words of Câ—rist in the same eight chapter of John whence we cited the last Testimony which certain acute men amongst the Adversaries have endeavoured to draw to their Opinion they are extant in ver 14. where Christ speaketh in this manner Though I give testimony of my self my testimony is true because I know whence I am and whither I go For had Christ been the most high God he ought not to bring and consequently would not have brought this reason that he knoweth whence he cometh and whither he goeth but rather this that he himself is the most high God or some such things containing the same sence But Christ did not alleage this but that cause The Defence of the Argument THey whom we mentioned here rise up and say That Christ alleaged this very cause for he spake figuratively and intimated more than he spaketh namely that he is the natural Son of God But if you object Why then did he not openly say because I am God They answer that Christ used the figure of insinuation accommodated and in a manner necessary for the persons with whom he spake For say they the Jews could not have endured it if he had openly called himself God or the Son of God Wherefore he spake what was true and what was necessary to the cause but so spake as that he might delude his Adversaries with the ambiguity and obscurity of his words But these men have by this explication deluded themselves and others but so did not Christ the Jews They confess and it is a plain case that Christ doth by those words intimate that he came from the Father came out of Heaven and shall again go into Heaven to the Father For who would make any doubt that Christ intended here to signifie what he elsewhere speaketh in the same John chap. 16.18 I went out from the Father and came into the World Again I leave the Word and go unto the Father Which thing is more than once repeated in other or the like words with the same Writer But such words as these are so far from signifying that Christ is the most high God that they imply the quite contrary For if these words I went out from the Father and came into the World be taken of a local motion as they spake that is of a descent from Heaven to Earth properly so called as those opposite ones Again I leave the World and go to the Father are to be understood of a local departure from the Earth